It seems “Green” and “Jobs” don’t sit too well together over at Number 10
Gordon Brown’s search engine is a bit smoky
It backfired and revealed a lack of vocabulary.
It found jobs in communities – [2] when asked to search including all words and exact phrase. green jobs missing.no mention of the phrase Green Jobs.a sad but true fact.
It’s not Gordon’s fault.
The Number 10 Search Engine is Conservative !
It found 2 links to the same pdf
With references to a Policing Green Paper.
We do however need to use less paper and more commonsense.
and perhaps sack [hemp] the Conservative Webmaster
It would be a start.
Now we’ve got slightly faster connectivity.
And supposed transparency.
Could we have some sort of link
To Green Jobs?
There must be more to this than meets the eye.
View Page of Gordon’s search for Green Jobs here
PS the search engine can’t read single words in that order.nor can it get exact phrase.
It’s quite simple really. hydraulic coast reclamation – realign your tidal prism – it’s all hands to the pump.wave fetch.give us a squeeze honey
Green ……………………………..Jobs
IT’s a clunky nobrainer.

Posted by Wordmobi

Get the Liquid~Link from futureproof.at
Petition Number 10 to Cancel – Trident
And use the monies saved, for: Green Jobs

Posted by Wordmobi

summary of Forest Day 3 [html] Martin Parry.Imperial University.London. Call for:Marshall Plan
Martin Parry – Imperial University “Key Factors”
Posted by Wordmobi

Post by Amanda Young, American University ‘13

Last Tuesday, President Obama unveiled his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan at West Point Military Academy. During his speech he announced plans to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. These troops will have the task of securing major cities and populations so the United States can then begin turning over responsibility to the Afghan forces in 18 months. Finally, there is a light at the end of an eight year long tunnel that cost millions of dollars and hundreds of American and Afghan lives.

As we draw closer to the end of American military presence in Afghanistan, I have to wonder, was it a success? Only time will tell, but if nothing is done to build and strengthen Afghanistan’s infrastructure you can bet these eight years will have been in vain. History has seen it before with World War I. Germany had a huge debt, lacked infrastructure, and had few to no jobs. In such a climate people turned toward extremism and twenty years after the Treaty of Versailles the world would once again find its self amidst a World War. The United States and her allies may have won World War I, but we did not keep the peace. The same idea lies behind Afghanistan. After decades of war and a poor standard of living the people have looked to the only paying jobs; the drug trade and al Qaeda. We were able to stop this vicious cycle in Europe after World War II by rebuilding Europe, creating infrastructures and jobs with the Marshall Plan. Logic tells us that the same thing needs to be done to ensure successful peace in Afghanistan.

On the White House website there are a few lines on“…implementing a civilian-military agriculture redevelopment strategy to restore Afghanistan’s once vibrant agriculture sector”. The White House must implement plans like this immediately after securing the area, so as to give hope and a future to the Afghan people. It is extremely important that the American public and international community stay active and aware even after all the troops are gone. Only then will Afghanistan continue to grow; ensuring lasting peace and we do not find ourselves fighting the same war again in twenty years.

You can find an in-depth break down of his strategy at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/way-forward-afghanistan and the full transcript of the West Point speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

The release of a new book, “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon . . . ,” by Bill Eggers and John O’Leary, helped set the stage for the National Academy of Public Administration’s annual meeting that centered on management issues related to health care reform.

The authors examine big successes undertaken by the government – like the Manhattan Project, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and the moon landing – and draw some lessons about what each took to be successful.  They also contrasted these successes with failures such as Boston’s Big Dig, Iraqi reconstruction efforts, and Hurricane Katrina.

In surveys of senior career executives in the federal government, “60 percent said that government was less capable of executing large projects today than it was thirty years ago,” noted the authors.

The authors declare: “This book is about executing large, important, public initiatives. . . making sound policy choices is critical . . . however, brilliant policies poorly executed will likewise disappoint.” They then look at large government undertakings from a process perspective, identifying six key elements:

• The undertaking must start with a good idea.
• The idea must be given specifics, often in the form of legislation, that become an implementable design.
• The design must win approval, as when a bill becomes law, signaling commitment.
• There must be competent implementation.
• The initiative must generate desired results.
• Over time, the initiative must be subjected to reevaluation.

The authors take on each of these steps, describing potential pitfalls as well practical principles, tools, and techniques to be successful.  They provide entertaining, well-written stories of people and projects, from the efforts of Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen in the wake of Katrina; to the implementation of the 2003 London traffic congestion charging program by Mayor Ken Livingstone; to the rolling blackouts in the California energy crisis of the late 1990s created by well-meaning but ill-designed state legislation, that led to the recall of Governor Gray Davis.

Their book contains insights and warnings helpful to the ongoing health care reform debate.  For example, they note that poor policy design “occurs because the work of drafting a bill that launches a major initiative isn’t generally treated like the design process it truly is.  Instead of a sound, executable design, the goal of the legislative process is often producing a bill that can pass . . . “  The authors continue, “Fully 45 percent of federal executives say that policy is rarely designed by those with relevant experience.  The dramatic disconnect between policy designers and policy implementers is perhaps the most broken part of the journey to success.” They recommend role playing and scenario planning efforts, like those used by military strategists and the private sector before it launches major initiatives.

They conclude with a warning:  “The tendency to see the enactment of legislation as an end unto itself, to claim credit for a great achievement upon the creation of a new law, is one of the most destructive tende3ncies in democratic governance.”

While Congress leads the legislative and policy design, the executive branch (and the Government Accountability Office) could proactively offer insights on the implementability of the pending legislation.  Eggers and O’Leary offer an ideal(istic) approach, recommending an objective “implementation feasibility assessment” to be done by an independent review board, much like the Congressional Budget Office offers its independent assessment of the cost of legislation.  However, that is not likely to happen any time soon!

1947 was a very important year for me because this was the year that my mum and dad met and began a romance that has led ultimately to this blog.

From the way dad used to talk about being a teenager I have always imagined the post war years to be an almost idyllic existence, Enid Blyton sort of days with long hot summers, blue skies, bike rides and picnics, where young people were polite and had good manners and didn’t spend their evenings hanging around Tesco Express with a bottle of cider, frightening the old folk and no one had heard of anti-social behaviour orders.

These were surely days of optimism with a country led by a Labour Government that had been elected in the summer of 1945 with a landslide majority and a promise to make everything better and which had embarked on a radical programme of nationalisation including coalmining, electricity supply and railways.  These were the days of the new National Health Service and the Welfare State all based on the optimistic principles of socialism.  And to add to all this good news the United States announced the Marshall Plan to pay for the reconstruction of Europe and that meant over three billion dollars was on the way to the United Kingdom to rebuild its cities and its economy.  This was the year of the inauguration of the United Nations which meant peace for ever more and the year that Princess Elizabeth married Prince Mountbatten.

The only thing that let 1947 down was the weather and the Britain experienced the worst winter of the century.  After the Second World War Britain was bombed out, bankrupt, exhausted and desperately short of fuel and the winter of 1947 sank the country to a new level of deprivation.

The winter began deceptively, with just a brief cold snap before Christmas 1946.  Snow lay thick on the ground when, in the middle of January, temperatures soared so high that it felt as if spring had arrived early.  The snow thawed so rapidly that it set off floods, just as hurricane-force winds brought down roofs, trees and even houses and the real winter arrived soon afterwards as the country was gripped in an Arctic freeze that lasted for two months, with snow whipped into monstrous drifts that buried roads and railways.

It became the coldest February ever recorded and there was virtually no sunshine for almost the whole month.  The freeze paralysed coalmines, with coal stocks often stuck at the collieries by railways and roads buried in snow.  A week after the freeze began the Government ordered electricity supplies to be cut to industry, and domestic electricity supplies to be turned off for five hours each day, to conserve coal stocks.  Television was closed down, radio output reduced, newspapers cut in size and magazines ordered to stop publishing.

Food supplies shrank alarmingly and rations were cut even lower than they had been during the war.  Farms were frozen or snowed under, and vegetables were in such short supply that pneumatic drills were used to dig up parsnips from frozen fields.  For the first time, potatoes were rationed after seventy-thousand tons were destroyed by the cold.  The Government tried a deeply unpopular campaign to encourage everyone to eat a cheap South African fish called snoek, and millions of tins of it were imported, but it tasted disgusting and was used eventually as cat food.

March turned out even worse than February and on the 5^th there was the worst blizzard of the 20^th  century.  Supplies of food shrank so low that in some places the police asked for authority to break open stranded lorries carrying food cargoes.  Eventually, on March 10^th a thaw set in and triggered another spectacular disaster.  After weeks of deep frost, the ground was so hard that the melting snow ran off into raging torrents of floodwater and, to make things worse, a huge storm dropped heavy rain.  Indeed, it was the wettest March on record in England and Wales. 

Less than two years after winning the war, the nation was left freezing cold, plunged into darkness and on the brink of starvation and for many people it showed that national planning and socialism did not work.  The Government was inevitably blamed for the disaster  and was turned out of office in a landslide defeat at the next general election in 1950.

Life was especially grim in the big cities and after the experience of the winter I suppose it was nice to have a holiday and that summer mum left London for a few days with a friend in Rushden in Northamptonshire and at some point during that week she met my dad.  He was sixteen but looked younger, he hadn’t finished growing so was still quite small, his nickname was Pid as in little piddy widdy, and he he had boyish face and an impish grin with piercing cobalt blue eyes and a distinctive hairstyle with a fringe that flopped over his forehead in a Hugh Grant sort of way.  He obviously made an immediate impact on the young girl visiting from London and they spent the rest of their lives together.

Not straight away of course because mum had to go back to London to finish school and here is something else that I find absolutely charming.  These were days before mobile phones and instant messenging, even before regular telephones so the only way they had of keeping in touch and keeping the romance going was by sending each other letters and photographs.  They kept this up for three years before dad was called up for national service in the RAF and he moved to London where he stayed until they married in 1953.

In 1948 dad left school and went to work for his father in the family business, a grocery store in Rushden, but they sold that sometime at the end of the decade and they all moved to Leicester and dad got his first proper job at Jessops.  I don’t know how much he earned, it couldn’t have been a lot, but from photoraphs it would seem that he spent quite a lot of it on clothes and he was always a smart, well turned out young man with an impressive wardrobe.

During the war most kinds of food came to be rationed, as were clothing and petrol.  Clothing was rationed on a points system.  Initially the allowance was for approximately one new outfit per year but as the war progressed the points were reduced to the point where the purchase of a coat constituted almost an entire year’s clothing.  By the end of the war the clothing ration was thirty-six points a year.   This didn’t go very far, it was two points for a pair of knickers, five points for a man’s shirt, five points for a pair of shoes, seven points for a dress and twenty-six points for a man’s suit.  Clothing rationing points could be used for wool, cotton and household textiles.  People had extra points for work clothes, such as overalls for factory work.  No points were required for second-hand clothing and fur coats, but their prices were fixed and before rationing lace and frills were popular on knickers but these were soon banned so material could be saved.

Rationing continued after the end of the war and in fact it became even stricter after the war ended.  Bread, which was not rationed during the war, was rationed beginning in 1946 and potato rationing began in 1947.  Sweet rationing didn’t end until February 1953, and sugar rationing ended in September of that year.  The final end of all rationing did not come until July 1954, after I was born, with the end of it on meat and bacon.

The picture at the top was taken in 1947 and his clothes look a bit shabby and worn through and they are in total contrast to the one below taken two years later on holiday in Skegness.  It’s a bit of a surprise because I don’t remember him being particularly interested in clothes and he would make most things last much longer than they could be reasonably expected to but for a couple of years in the late 1940s he obviously cared about his clothes and his appearance.  Or perhaps, judging by how much he had grown in two years, replacement clothes were a regular necessity during that time.

I like this picture, dad was eighteen and looks smart, self assured and full of confidence, mum was sixteen and looks really happy to be with this really special man.

President Obama has traveled extensively overseas in his first ten months in office.  During some of these visits he offered a reoccurring apology for America’s past sins.  His approach is perplexing and is probably an attempt by the President to gain cooperation from other governments for his foreign policy agendas.  This is misplaced diplomacy.  Countries pursue policies that are good for their interests and the personal re-election needs of the politicians, not because of niceties expressed by another country’s politician.

The President’s approach requires a view of America’s history from a distorted lens.  While American has not been without sin, it is the country that the world has turned to when there have been catastrophes and wars.  It is the place that immigrants have sought to escape the oppression of their native lands.

Before the President takes his next trip to Europe he should review the history of America’s roles in World War I and World War II.  In both cases, American came to the aid of a Europe ravaged in total war when America was geographically isolated from those conflicts.  When Europe was in shambles after World War II, it did not seek reparations that certainly were due it.  Instead, America came up with the philanthropic Marshall Plan and rebuilt Europe.

Financial cost aside, the true measure of America’s commitment to Europe can be seen in cemeteries that dot the continent.  Over 100,000 families of fallen GI’s chose to leave their soldier’s remains in the countries where they fell.  The list below includes those cemeteries and the lost of American lives.  For those that have distorted lenses, this sobering review is a great cleanup tool.

• American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France.  WWI.  2,289
• American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium.  WWII.  5,329
• American Cemetery at Brittany, France.  WWII.  4,410
• Brookwood American Cemetery & Memorial, England.  WWI/II.  468
• Cambridge, England.  WWII.  3,812
• Epinal, France American Cemetery.  WWII.  5,525
• Flanders Field American Cemetery & Memorial, Belgium.  WWI.  368
• Florence American Cemetery & Memorial, WWII.  Italy.  4,402
• Henri-Chapelle Cemetery, Belgium.  WWII.  7,992
• Lorraine American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWII.  10,489
• Luxembourg American Cemetery & Memorial, Luxembourg.  WWII.  5,076
• Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery & Memorial.  WWI.  14,246
• Netherlands American Cemetery & Memorial, Netherlands.  WWII.  8,301
• Normandy American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWII.  9,387
• Oise-Aisne American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWI.  6,012
• Rhone American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWII.  861
• Sicily American Cemetery & Memorial, Italy.  WWII.  7,861
• Somme American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWI.  1.844
• St. Mihiel American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWI/II.  4.153
• Suresnes American Cemetery & Memorial, France.  WWI/II.  1,541

by Eric Margolis

In 1975, physicist Andrei Sakharov and a group of fellow Soviet academicians warned the Kremlin leadership that unless the nation’s ruinous defense spending was slashed and funds refocused on modernizing the nation’s decrepit, obsolete industrial base and its wretched state agriculture, the Soviet Union would collapse by 1990.

Their grim warning was prescient. Twenty years ago this week – 9 November, 1989 – boisterous German crowds forced open the hated Berlin Wall, Communist East Germany collapsed in black farce, and the once mighty Soviet Empire began to crumble.

This was one of modern history’s most dramatic and dangerous moments. No one knew if the dying Soviet Union would expire peacefully, or ignite World War III.

In November, 1989, the vast empire built by Stalin that stretched from East Berlin to Vladivostok was on its last legs. The USSR had 50,000 battle tanks and 30,000 nuclear warheads, but could not feed its people. Military spending consumed 20% of the economy. As I saw for myself while traveling around the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s, conditions were often primitive, even third world outside the big cities.

Afghanistan’s “mujahidin” had all but defeated the mighty Red Army. Poland’s Solidarity Union, secretly funded by Pope John Paul and the CIA through Panamanian shell companies, had risen in revolt. So, too, ever rebellious Hungarians, joined by Lithuanians and East Germans.

The old joke in Moscow was that the East Germans were the only people who could make Communism work. Now they were in revolt.

The reformist Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev had to make a fateful decision: allow events to take their course, or order the Red Army and KGB to crush the spreading uprisings – and run the risk of war with NATO, particularly so if the Warsaw Pact’s armies turned their guns against the Soviet occupation forces and fighting spread across the Inner German Border.

Unlike his brutal Soviet predecessors, Mikhail Gorbachev was a man of profound moral values, a genuine humanist and idealist who believed he could reform the USSR through democratic socialism and patient, open debate – his “glasnost and perestroika.”

After a violent incident staged by Communist hard-liners in the Baltic, President Gorbachev refused to use force against his own people.

But once fear of repression was removed, the Soviet Union, a nation of 120 languages spread over eleven time zones, shattered. Gorbachev simply could not control the ensuing whirlwind of nationalism his reforms had sown.

Today, most Russians revile Gorbachev for wrecking the Soviet Union. The sinister Communist era, including Stalin’s monstrous crimes, are being sugarcoated with nostalgia.

Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest tragedy of the 20^th century.”

In truth, the Soviet Union was history’s most brutal, murderous tyranny that killed three times more victims than Hitler.

Gorbachev did not plan to destroy the Soviet Union but to reform and revitalize it. But by refusing to hold it together by force, he brought about its doom.

Gorbachev did the world a huge favor.

In any event, the Soviet Union was destined to crumble, Gorby or no Gorby. Like the old Ottoman Empire, the USSR could only survive by gobbling up its neighbors.

In 1989, the state that had run on virtual war footing since 1945, died of exhaustion. As Voltaire said of Prussia, the Soviet Union was an army, disguised as a state.

For me, Gorbachev was one of the greatest men of our time. He put international law, basic humanity, and civilized behavior before the demands of brute power. We must also salute Gorbachev’s chief lieutenant and powerhouse behind the reform movement, former Georgian KGB chief and Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Schevardnadze, who urged total de-communization and disarmament.

Later, as president of independent Georgia, Shevardnadze was overthrown – ironically – by a US-organized revolution.

Gorbachev purged hardeners from the Soviet military-industrial complex, vetoed an antimissile system, sharply downsized the Soviet military, and wisely ended the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, a lesson Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama has yet to learn.

But when Gorbachev and Shevardnadze sensibly sought total nuclear disarmament, President Ronald Reagan, obsessed by the unworkable Star Wars antimissile project, refused Russia’s offer that would have eliminated all nuclear weapons and missiles.

Other courageous Russians reformers who helped end the Cold War deserve to be remembered: Anatoly Chernayev; Georgi Shakhnazarov; former ambassador to Canada, Alexander Yakovlev; and Gorbachev’s brave, cerebral wife and confidante, Raisa.

Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President H.W. Bush also merit kudos for their able management of the Cold war’s end. By contrast, Britain’s Margaret Thatcher shamefully relapsed into Europe’s evil old ways by trying to block German unification.

President Gorbachev kept begging the western powers to launch another Marshall Plan to rescue the dying Soviet Union and democratize it. Tragically, they did not. Instead, the Clinton administration chose to treat the new, battered Russia as a client state.

Communist die-hards launched a farcical, drunken coup against Gorbachev that was thwarted by the courage of the then still sober Russian president, Boris Yeltsin; Aviation Marshall Yevgeny Shaposhnikov; and – a story that is still little known in the west – KGB moderates.

In 1990, I was the first western journalist ever allowed into the dreaded Lubyanka Prison, the headquarters of KGB, to interview senior KGB officers of the elite First Directorate (from whence came Vlad Putin) who had turned against the Communist Party and were seeking to reform Russia.

In the end, Gorbachev was left the leader of a nation that had ceased to exist, the USSR, the object of popular wrath, a great statesman without a country, a Russian King Lear on a blasted heath.

Twenty years later, the world owes Gorbachev an enormous debt of gratitude for ending the Cold War, and freeing Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. Thank our lucky stars Gorbachev was in power when the Soviet Union met its inevitable collapse – or we could have faced World War III.

Mikhail Sergeyevitch Gorbachev showed that once in a millennium a great political leader can rise above the law of the jungle.

November 10, 2009

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis168.html

MC 011 – Themselves,  Ergo Phizmiz,  Amon Duul II ‘Made In Germany’ and ‘Legends Of Benin’

We have a lot to get through with this edition so I shan’t keep you to long.

The 20th anniversary of the Berlin wall coming down seems apt as I finally reach Amon Duul II’s LP ‘Made In Germany’. My article is full of information on the records subject matter, a 150 year journey through Germany’s history with all its references to war, art, opera and literature. This grand opus of a rock opera shares the same criticisms that most concept albums attract. Much lauded even by fans of German music this album has had a thorough kicking, in part due to its controversial topics. Recently Kasabian have come out and admitted to using the cover artwork as a backdrop to their own ‘West Ryder Pauper Lunatic Asylum’.

We have three albums up for review this time round. The  left field Hip Hop of Themselves, Surrealist experimental musician Ergo Phizmiz and the latest compilation from German label Analog Africa all make an appearance.

I shall leave you to it.

(DV)

Themselves - 'Crowns Down' 2009

Themselves – ‘Crowns Down’

Anticon 2009

Vinyl (double)

Side 1.

1.    ‘Back II Burn’

2.    ‘Oversleeping’

3.    ‘The Mark’

Side 2.

1.    ‘Gangster Of Disbelief’

2.    ‘Daxstrong’

3.    ‘You Ain’t It’

Side 3.

1.    ‘Roman Is As Roman Does’

2.    ‘Skinning The Drum’

Side 4.

1.    ‘Dead Catcher II’

2.    ‘Gold Teeth Will Roll’

In recent times we have seen a flourishing underground movement in Hip Hop that has moved towards a rawer and more left field indie direction. Both in the use of their original beats and the style of delivery artists such as MF Doom, Madlib, Mr.Lif, Aesop Rock and Edan have remained low key in the background busily reinventing the scene. They all make the ridiculous blown up pretensions of commercial Hip Hop look frankly out dated and stale. Just because the likes of Kayne West sample Daft Punk it doesn’t mean that he has taken any risks.
You see it’s all calculated to the nth degree so that he can sell more of his pop lite banal brand of rap, we seem to have created a monster! His rival to the crown of most over-rated rapper is Jay Z whose recent headline at Glastonbury just made the case for yet more of that smoke and mirrors nonsense of epic proportions.
The last decade in Hip Hop has ended up being watered down for the X-Box generation, either brute force messages about killing to stay alive or boring ditties about girls and money by 50 Cent seem to be the only choices on offer to the masses. But there is an amazing scene that runs counter to its bloated rival helped by social networking sites and low key gigs that have promoted some of the more cutting edge and experimental groups out there.
Artists like Yo! Majesty and Uffie have broken through yet remain gritty and carry a lot of kudos, granted that they may not have the most politically charged of subjects in their resume. Like Spank Rock they may just want to shake their booty. All these artists have incorporated a back to basics approach into their music, rocking beats from the golden period of Hip Hop in the Eighties and merging them with an updated style of now.

Which leads me to the inventive duo of Dose One and Jel, who have both been involved in a long list of creative projects including the highly acclaimed cLOUDDEAD and Subtle, whose influence is heavy on this the third album from their creatively successful moniker Themsleves.
Dose One and Jel return to the old skool set up of MC and DJ to create an extraordinary poetic slice of never ending prose, set to a mix of beats and samples that conjure up memories of the golden period in Hip Hop of 1985 to 1989.
On top of this we get a layer of industrial strength effects and abstract sounds familiar to those used on Subtle’s ‘Exiting Arm’ LP.
The rapping features the distinct nasal style of Dose who never lets up on the tracks ‘Oversleeping’ and ‘The Mark’, in fact it sounds like he’s not going to ever come up for a breath. He uses this delivery style almost like an instrument in its own right as he spits rapid readings like a form of lyrical autism.
Famously back in the day Dose faced off against an unknown Eninem at a scribble jam, which he lost by the way though I think we know who the real winner is!
Partner Jel supplies the music and drum beats though some cool and dazzling effects, he borrows from Ultramagnatic MC’s, Kool G Rapp and Marley Marl. Like on the opener ‘Back II Burn’ which uses a heavily influenced electro break fest from Graig G era Transformer’, or the darker tones of past masters Paris and Big Daddy Kane on the track ‘Roman Is As Roman Does’.
His drum machine creates some deeply unwieldy moods that threaten to crush who those that step up to the challenge.

Highlights on the album include ‘Skinning The Drum’ which has samples flying around with nods of recognition to the pioneers, much in similar fashion to Edan on his ‘Beauty And The Beat’ LP.
The lyrics further back up the mood with the repeated refrain of “who was inventing it, who was wrenching it”,
On ‘Daxstrong’ a swirling playground ambience turns into an assemblage of breaks that could have been on the cLOUDDEAD album as Dose eloquently builds up a picture of social ills expressed in his clever use of lyricism.

My only criticism is in the track ‘You Ain’t It’ which sounds like a horrible vocoder pastiche of Californian bump and grind mixed with Hal Mar Superstar’s smooth brand of funk.
I’m not sure what they are trying to do with this song but it doesn’t in my mind sit well with the rest of the album.

This album thoroughly deserves your attention even if you don’t usually follow Hip Hop. A mix of experimental sound collage and subliminal wordplay suffused with the inventive use of samples ‘Crowns Down’ could be the equivalent of TV On The Radio’s ‘Dear Science’ LP from last year.
It will defiantly make my best of 2009 list.

Dominic Valvona

Ergo Phizmiz himself steering the Dada ship ever forward.

Ergo Phizmiz (& The Rock ‘n’ Roll Machine) – ‘Dadaphone’

Available through FMA (Free Music Archive)

1.    The Bomb
2.     It’s A Sin
3.    Saturday Night
4.    Karma Police
5.    A Little Respect
6.    Lets Get Ready To Rhumba
7.    Turn Around
8.    Slap My Bass Up
9.    I Think We’re Alone Now
10.  That Bassline

Ergo Phizmiz is the modern day equivalent to the Surrealist Max Ernst and Fluxus movements La Monte Young.
His work across installation, sound and performance pushes the ideals of Dada to more extremes with his nonsensical and childlike approach to sometimes-heavy themes.
An in demand composer who has had work commissioned for numerous art institutions as well as the BBC, his back catalogue is far and wide in range.
The common thread that runs throughout is that he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously, a joyful abandon cannot be contained no matter how stiff the subject.
I actually briefly contributed to one of his projects a while back. At the time he was artist in residence at the Dimbola Lodge gallery on the Isle Of Wight, famous for being the home of Victorian photography pioneer Margaret Cameron; the Annie Leibovitz of her day hanging out with Tennyson and Darwin among many other renowned characters.
Ergo weaved a set of recordings around the history of the place with his storytelling sound collages, I found myself taking part with a conversation piece between us being cut up and added.
Anyway I’m diverting attention away from the album, let me continue back on track so to speak.

This ten track scattering of covers entitled ‘Dadaphone’ is a strange mix of Nineties commercial dance anthems, Eighties pop and some more credible labelled songs such as ‘Karma Police’ by Radiohead.
Erasure, Pet Shop Boys and shopping mall teen queen Tiffany all spring up and receive a tongue in cheek deconstructive form of dismemberment.
Ergo’s brand of medicine produces a mix of Captian Beefhart era ‘Electricity’ and Bonzo Dog band ‘Gorilla’, which on the Ant and Dec adjusted titled song  ‘Lets Get Ready To Rhumba’ is evident in the Bonzo’s Cambridge Footlights vaudeville humour.

The stand out tunes include The White Stripes style trash of ‘It’s a Sin’, which erupts into a slavishly grinded out blues number via the sonant ‘Greensleeves.’
As I mentioned before Radiohead’s ‘Karma Police’ is given the Ergo treatment, though his version becomes a jaunty polka knees up that drops a lot of the original sentiment out yet still captures some of the soul.
‘I Think We’re Alone Now’ is now a romantic mandolin led waltz through medieval France in the age of Chretien De Troyes. Both pleasant and joyful his appropriation of this Eighties pap actually lends it some gravitas that the original never envisioned.
By far my most favourite cover is Erasures classic ‘A Little Respect’, which in the hands of Ergo becomes a maelstrom of raw emotion played out by krautrockers noise merchants Faust.
Heavy yet not ridiculous it is a pretty deserving tribute.

Lesser highlights yet still worthy of your attention is the broken down cacophony of ‘That Bassline’. The bass line in question is Chic’s, which is accompanied by a mash up of competing riffs and refrains. Pure Beefheart in approach and spirit everyone sounds like they’re playing completely different tunes at the same time. It amusingly starts to work and instead of falling completely apart resignedly triumphs in its chaos.
Also on the album there are experimental nods to dance acts such as the Prodigy and pop princess Kylie as well as a sea shanty inspired rendition of the annoying hit ‘Saturday Night’. I can’t for the life of me remember who had the original hit but she was defiantly Dutch.

All of the tunes are freely available on the music site Free Music Archive, where you can choose at will or download the lot. My advice is to grab them all as everyone eventually grows on you.

God bless you Ergo Phizmiz! May your avant garde ship of tomfoolery continue to set its course through the oceans of mediocrity and boredom.
Not too strong I hope!

Dominic Valvona.

Analog Africas 'Legends Of Benin' compilation 2009.

‘Legends Of Benin’ (Afro Funk – Cavacha – Agbadja – Afro Beat 1969 to 1981) –  Gnonnas Pedro/ El Rego/ Antoine Dougbe/ Honore Avolonto.

Double Album available on both Vinyl (version reviewed and CD)

Accompanied by the following backing bands: -

Dadjes
Panchos
L’Orchestre Poly-Rythmo
L’Orchestre Black Santiago

Compiled by Samy Ben Rejob for Analog Africa Records, 2009

Track List:-

Side A

1.    ‘Dadje Von O Von Non’ – Gnonnas Pedro et Ses Dadjes (3:53)

2.    ‘Feeling You Got’ – El Rego et Ses Commandos (3:44)

3.    ‘Honton Soukpo Gnon’ Antoine Dougbe  (7:05)

4.    ‘E Nan Mian Nuku’ – El Rego et Ses Commandos (4:26)

Side B

1.    ‘Tin Lin Non’ – Honore Avolonto et l’Orchestre Poly-Rythmo (8:48)

2.    ‘Okpo Videa Bassouo’ – Gnonnas Pedro et Ses Panchos (3:30)

3.    ‘Ya Mi Ton Gbo’ – Dougbe et l’Orchestre Poly-Rythmo (6:34)

Side C

1.    ‘Nou Akuenon Hwlin Me Sin Koussio’ – Antoine Dougbe (5:03)

2.    ‘Na Mi Do Gbe Hue Nu’ – Honore Avolonto (6:44)

3.    ‘Vimado Wingnan’ – El Rego et Ses Commandos (3:01)

4.    ‘Dou Dagbe We’ – Honore Avolonto et l’Orchestre Black Santiago (4:26)

Side D

1.    ‘Djobime’ – El Rego et Ses Commandos (2:31)

2.    ‘Kovito Gbe De Towe’ – Antoine Dougbe (6:39)

3.    ‘La Musica en Verite’ – Gnonnas Pedro et Ses Dadjes (7:08)

Afro beat; Afro funk and all its many bewildering sub genres have always slightly perplexed me. I’ve often taken a peek and thumb through the African music section in all the record shops that I regularly frequent, though until now I have left it well alone. The sheer depth and number of styles have often left me confused, as a novice I feel a little shy to point out my ignorance, though it never usually stops me from having a punt and purchasing a record on chance alone.
Well on this occasion my first ever-actual buy was aided by complete chance.
I happened to be in Borderline Records store in Brighton, an emporium of reissues and forgotten gems from bygone ages. On that day they were playing some pretty groovy foot tapping sounds, a quaint version of early Stax mixed with liberal lashings of James Brown’s infused funky Zaire period soul.
Instantly I became hooked as my whole body decided to break out into some embarrassing Paul Simon induced dance routine. Cut a long story short I ended up asking the owner what he was playing, he kindly showed me what it was and I ended up with ‘Legends Of Benin’ a lovingly compiled album of 14 tracks by four of the African country of Benin’s finest artists. In case your knowledge of African geography is shaky, Benin is in the west and borders Togo, Nigeria, Burkino Faso and Niger. Tightly caged in by its neighbours the influence of all these regions leaks into the music to create a unique mash up of rhythms and beats, that switches from rhumba to rocksteady in the blink of an eye.

The artists on this album include the likes of Gnonnas Pedro, a politically charged crusader, El Rego, an entrepreneur of dubious enterprises including a brothel and a boxing club, Antione Dougbe a much feared Vodun priest and Honore Avolonto, responsible for the country’s biggest selling album of all time.
These pioneers of poly-rhythmic charged music were all collected together by German based label Analog Africa’s Samy Ben Redjeb, an honourable sounding advocate of the genre who should be commended for his efforts.
His personal sleeve notes lavishly grace the record with a real fondness and warmth, though he had many problems licensing and obtaining permission to release this record. Three of the four artists are no longer with us so their legacy has been left in the hands of relatives and old musical comrades, not all of them initially eager or trusting in the beginning.

The music itself is a combination of funk, rhumba, soul and an attempt at reggae, all served with a thick dose of infectious grooving traditional African rhythms and instruments. Local bands to the region back each of the artists, from the military moniker Commandos to the exotically named Black Santiago.
Being a former colony of France the songs are titled and sung in the former interlopers language, if it makes sense these tracks even sound like their being played in French.

Highlights on this record include El Rego’s ‘Feeling You Out’, which has an inviting bass line that introduces a prime slice of James Brown at the Apollo rawness whilst the sax sounding squeaks coupled with a break beat backing make this into sound like a missing Northern soul stomper.
Antoine Dougbe, the high priest of some primal religion who professed to be the spirit of a dead relative sent back to this world so he could heal and curse those who cross him, concocts a swinging style of pulsating and joyful abandon on ‘Ya Mi Ton Gba’. His more down to earth day job as a musician is less frightening then his reputation precedes.
Honore Avolonto on ‘Tin Lin Non’ delivers an Afro beat groove behemoth that just never lets up, whilst Gnonnas unleashes a call and response soul spine tinkler with ‘Okpo Videa Bassovo’. His ‘Dadje Von O Von Non’ opens with ghostly sounding twanging guitars and features catcalls over a bouncing melody.
Some of the tracks are more laid back and quite subtle evoking comparisons to ska.
There is a real sense of authenticity running through these tunes and they come across as quite fun to make.
All the musicianship is tight with plenty of space to let it breath, there are no solos or hogging of the limelight to be found.
As to all the different genres I’m still not too sure how they’re prescribed only that it has something to do with timing, the instrumentation and that some of the styles are derived from ceremonies and folklore. None of this matters of course as they all sound great.

Chuck this on to get any party moving and to impress your know it all friends.
Thanks Analog Africa for introducing me to an untapped rich library of quality world music.

Dominic Valvona

A German Music Odyssey – (1968 to 1975)

Part 8 – Amon Duul II   ‘Made In Germany’

Background: -

Sadly this will be the last in the series dedicated to Amon Duul II before I go to work on Colognes finest Krautrock advocates Can.
But I’m ending it with the bands sensational Teutonic rock opera of 1975 ‘Made In Germany’.
This epic homage to the Who’s ‘Tommy’, broadly mixes in all the low and high points of Germanys history, from the birth of a united country in the 1800’s to the fall out of World War II. Along the way countless references incorporate a host of cultural figures, from composers such as Wagner to the philosopher Kant.
Politically charged and self-mocking this album both courted mock disdain and controversy, which we will come to later.

Firstly that’s rewind back to 1974, a stressful period in the bands career. Coming home after a tout and emotionally draining tour the guys needed a little down time, members had upped and left whilst the direction of the music was in turmoil.
Along comes the A&R man Jurge S. Korduletsch, a man of considerable means who had recently set up his own label Lollipop Records. Certain promises were made and before you knew it he had signed them up.
At once he pushed the band into a recording session, this hastily orchestrated session became the backbone of their next release ‘Hi-Jack’. This strange record became their most commercial marketable album yet and oddly borrowed heavily from Bowie and glam rock.
It was at this point that Atlantic records came calling offering a deal to release their music in the states, though they would also release the LPs under the ATCO division in the US and Canada. This may have been in response to the relative success that Virgin were having with bands from Germany, Tangerine Dream and Can amongst others.
After some initial success with ‘Hi-Jack’ it was agreed that now would be the time to follow up with something quite ambitious, as well as a great fuck you to the establishment and sensibilities of the man.
John Weinzierl puts it that they basically become disillusioned with the so-called changes in society and empty gestures of the underground youth movements. Also it was apparent to him that history itself was not moving on and that his fellow compatriots were still seen as the bogeyman of Europe. Even though his generation had seen the horrendous fall out of the former regime and reacted to it by pushing the leftist antidote forward, they were still envisaged as bad guys. As much as they tried to separate and fight against it, the world carried on viewing them with suspicion and always eager to remind them of the war.
With all this in mind Weinzierl and the group embarked on a grand project which would see them releasing a double album of songs based around a central theme of irony and self-provocation. This would take both real and made up figures from the rich history of the country, borrowing heavily from literature, film, opera, fantasy and real life events.
The Weimer Republic, Fritz Lang, King Ludwig, Hitler and Marlene Dietrich all make an appearance in this cliché heavy diatribe. From the unification under the heavy brow beating of Prussia, which came after the eventual victory over Napoleon to an initial story involving a character named Mr.Kraut, this LP has it all crammed in.
‘Made In Germany’ is like nothing they’ve done before and continued instead a move towards a crossover rock and pop experimentation, which ‘Hi- Jack’ had tried before.
By this point they shared nothing in common with any of their fellow countrymen in style or direction as they went out on a limb with their new brand of classical music and intelligent rock.

In the krautrock fraternity this record is usually given a wide berth, which is unfair. A loyal bunch of us have a certain fondness though and will go on about it quite a lot, spreading the word so to speak. Recently to my surprise a new champion in the form of Kasabian came forward, who both rate the record and admit to using its cover as inspiration for ‘West Ryder Pauper Lunatic Asylum’.

The cover artwork of ‘Made In Germany’ is itself different depending on which of the two different versions you have.
In both the US and UK a compressed single LP version (see track list) was released. This had Renate dolled up to look like Marlene Dietrich from the movie ‘The Blue Angel’, she has an alluring but contemptuous gaze as she straddles a chair in true Cabaret style.
The original version used a picture of the band sitting for an old fashioned portrait bedecked in various costumes including Bavarian pomp, what looks like a Zeppelin pilot and Renate as a heroine from Wagners Ring Cycle. This is the picture that Kasabian re-enacted for their album.
This original was included in the single version on the inlay sleeve as well, so not sure why they buggered about with it.
The reasons for their being two variations comes down to a fall out with Atlantic boss Ahmet Ertigon, who was mightily surprised to find his latest signing offer up this platter of Germanic mayhem and political satire.
Finding it in poor taste and completely misreading the concept he got cold feet and cut the album down, only Germany itself to my knowledge received the proper double album. Rumours that Ahmet’s Jewish background played a part, though on being told that Amon Duul II wanted to embark on a US tour/invasion by travelling over in a Zeppelin can’t have helped matters. Remember this is only thirty years after the end of World War II itself.
Also the original contains a mock shock DJ interview with Hitler himself, which uses his speeches as the DJ pokes fun with a knowing wink and some poor taste quips. All this has been available on CD for years now so you don’t have to miss any of the stuff that was cut out on the single album.

The recording itself included session players such as Thor Baldursson, the Icelandic keyboardist and singer who worked with Giorgio Moroder and Grace Jones, Heinz Becker, Lee Harper, Bobby Jones and Helmut Sonnlestner, who all had a background in jazz.
New boy Nando Tischer became a fully ingrained member of the band playing guitars and singing as well as composing some of the songs. Robby Heibl was back on duty again and mucked in on near enough everything, he was also now the designated bass player of the group.
John Weinzierl is credited as guitarist but was the leader so to speak of Amon Duul II and is responsible for a far old share of the concept and composition.
Renate and Chris Karrer do most of the singing whilst Falk U Rogner supplied his sonic delft touches on synth and organ.
The talented Peter Leopold, who gets some room to show of his old ‘Yeti’ solos, supplied drums as usual.
All of the musicians do a sterling job and it is amongst the best of their whole catalogue. Obviously the songs are more structured but there is always room for inventiveness and some great lead guitar work.

Right I think that covers the background details now its time for the review.
I’ve chosen the original double album version to write about but have included both track listings for completion.
Also at the end of the review there is a complete list of all their releases up to date.
Weinzierl and some of the core members continue to tour and are embarking on a new album. Also they are set to be busy with showcasing some of their old material for a one off filmed performance that will take place in the original Bavaria studios.
Of course I will update you on when this will happen.

Review:-

‘Made In Germany’ 1975

Double gatefold LP on Nova Records, only released in Germany at the time.

Record 1.

1. Overture    (5:12)

2. Wir Wollen    (1:32)

3. Wilhelm Wilhelm    (3:10)

4. SM II Peng    (2:16)

5. Elevators Meets Whispering    (1:26)

6. Metropolis    (3:27)

7. Ludwig    (2:32)

8. The Kings Chocolate Waltz    (2:28)

9. Blue Grotto    (3:33)

10. Mr.Krauts Jinx    (8:44)

Record 2.

1. Wide Angle   (4:06)

2. Three-Eyed Overdrive    (1:17)

3. Emigrant Song    (3:21)

4. Loosey Girls    (5:13)

5. Top Of The Mud    (3:45)

6. Dreams    (4:08)

7. Gala Gnome    (3:52)

8. 5.5.55    (1:39)

9. La Krautoma    (6:08)

10. Excessive Spray    (1:41)

Single version on one record released in 1975.

UK – Atlantic Records

US/Canada – ATCO

Side A.

1. Dreams    (4:08)

2a. Ludwig    (2:33)

b. The Kings Chocolate Waltz    (2:52)

c. Blue Grotto    (3:33)

3. 5.5.55    (3:13)

4. Emigrant Song   (3:23)

5. La Krautoma    (4:45)

Side B.

1. Metropolis    (3:38)

2. Loosey Girls    (5:20)

3. Gala Gnome    (1:18)

4. Top Of The Mud    (3:44)

5. Mr.Krauts Jinx    (8:48)

Personal: -

Renate Knaup: Vocals

Robby Heibl: Vocals, Bass, Guitars and Violin

Chris Karrer: Vocals, Guitar, Banjo and Violin

Peter Leopold: Drums and Percussion

Falk U Rogner: Synthesizer and Organ

Nando Tischer: Vocals and Guitar

John Weinzierl: Guitar

Thor Baldursson: Keyboards

Heinz Becker: Timpani, Gong and Percussion

Lee Harper: Trumpet, Brass Section

Bobby Jones: Saxophone (Solos on ‘Loosey Girls’)

Jurgen S.Korduletsch: Additional Backing Vocals and Producer

Helmut Sonnleitner: First Violin and String Section

A rolling timpani and clashes of cymbals announce the theatrical opening bars of ‘Overture’. A prelude orchestral snippet of all the tunes to come, it is used in a similar fashion to the same titled song on The Who’s ‘Tommy’.
This Wagner evoking composition transcends his ‘Ring Cycle’ stiffness and is instead an uproarious celebration of this inspired requiem that Amon Duul II have set sail on.
Played out in full classical pomp this overture of sorts’ sets us up for the 150-year journey through Germanys history.
The track makes its way through all the different melodies on this album, 8 bars or so of each song to come is given the ceremonial treatment before a final clash of the gong and the next track ‘Wir Wollen’ strikes up.
Roughly translated as Come On!, this rock steady instrumental groover continues the classical mood. Old joy de vie orchestral pieces from past dead German composers interact with the lead guitar of John Weinzierl as the percussion crashes about in the background., culminating in an epic finale.
‘Wilhelm Wilhelm’ breezes along on some hip riffs as Renate and Chris Karrer enter the fray with their harsh Germanic tones that tell the tale of King Wilhelm I of Prussia (between 1861 – 1888) and later on the whole of united Germany (1871 – 1888).
Wilhelm had fought against Napoleon in his youth and went onto to rule the kingdom of Prussia before eventually brow beating all the separate states, of what was to become Germany, into eventual unification.
He famously appointed Otto Von Bismarck as his Prime Minister, which was in part due to the ill feeling and distrust between the royal household and parliament. Bismarck was to act as his man on the inside and to be sympathetic to the Kings views but this gave way to him taking on most of the decisions and led to him gaining most of the real power.
Added to this the founding of the a new Fatherland were plots of assassination by anarchist and left wing groups, which led to draconian laws being introduced against the liberals and free thinkers. King Wilhelm was lucky to escape with his life and was wounded in one of these attempts, which he saw as a wake up call and prompted a lock down mentality and placed the country in a militarised state, ring any bells!
Our three-minute funky number encapsulates all this background into a poppy little ditty that is both sung in English and their native tongue. A chiming melody and a crunchy wah wah effects driven guitar gives this song an almost rock disco feel, whilst Peter Leopold lets loose on the cymbals that end in an eruption.
The strange and exotic titled ‘SM II Peng’ is next up, another instrumental interlude. It ambles along in fine fettle abandon riffing off a 12 bar blues boogie with the accompaniment of some spooky sounding effects from Falk U Rogner. The track sounds like a cheerful wander through a graveyard or a sit down at an séance in a Gothic palace.
This is followed by another instrumental segue way entitled ‘Elevators Meets Whispering’, which apart from its strange use of English is another slice of mysterious creepy and misty fog bound graveyard atmospherics.
Our odd curio is given some gravitas from Weinzierl and his strung out haunting guitar strums before this short interruption abruptly ends and makes way for the big guns.
‘Metropolis’ begins with a grand piano, which accompanies a staccato riff of rock as Renate’s sultry Teutonic tones gloriously paint a picture of 1920’s Weimar through the films of Fritz Lang.
Lang and his most famous work of art ‘Metropolis’ is dissected and referenced throughout the tune, nods to both locations and the underlying plot are connected to paint a picture of disillusionment. Angles, Dr.Mabuse and Zeppelins all pop up, as the workers remain left at the bottom of a modern day version of the Tower of Babel. As in the biblical tale a common language is lost between those in control who reached the peek by standing on the underclass’s faces and those who ended up in a shitpile after building futile monuments to false ideologies.
This expressionistic romp both mixes Sparks and Roxy Music into a boogie Euro stomp; Renate adds a dose of eccentricity with her approach to the vocals that are sung with enthusiasm but also with the hint of cynicism. She sounds like a heroine from one of Klimts paintings or an oracle from Wagners ‘Valkyrie’. This is one of the albums many highlights.

Next up is the three-part story arc suite of poor old King Ludwig, a much maligned and ridiculed figure from German history.
The first of these acts is ‘Ludwig’ which tells the tale of his apparent suicide by drowning, though a strange plot to get rid of him by his ministers makes for a good conspiracy theory.
Ludwig II of Bavaria was brought up in a privileged world and he inherited his fathers’ exuberance for fantasy and myth. His love of arts and music led to him patronising the controversial Richard Wagner, who had been involved in anti-establishment intrigues and had run away once after taking part in protests. This lonely king was more at ease with images of old folklore and Arthurian legend then with the day-to-day running of his country.
After the unification of all the individual kingdoms by Wilhelm, Ludwig stayed on his throne but with a diminished role. Following his late fathers building plan of extensive palaces and castles, he plunged his domain into bankruptcy. Not wishing to take advice from his ministers he threatened them with being removed.
Plots to have the king certified as mentally unstable were slowly put into place, a hasty draft was sent for approval to Bismarck himself who dismissed the claims.
Another attempt with the involvement of four prominent physicians of the day sealed his fate, though he didn’t come quietly and its alleged he may have been shot whilst escaping on Lake Starnberg. It was announced to the world that he had committed suicide but we know better – right?
‘Ludwig’ crams all of this background into a satire inspired boogie that has Renate on lead vocals again.
‘The Kings Chocolate Waltz’ is an instrumental stopgap built around a sad sounding Wurlitzer loop. Some echo and deep reverb drenched guitars are added to the stirring ambience.
Our short story arc is finalised with ‘Blue Grotto’, with its poetic and crooned delivery from Renate. Ludwig and his eccentricities are given an airing in this ballad to the misunderstood actions of the deluded king.
What chance did he have when he was famously brought up in the Disney like palace of Neushwanstein, which was situated near to Schwansee or under its better-known moniker Swan Lake. In fact Ludwig was nicknamed the Swan King after it.
All the references in this song are adhered to in the true misfortunes of the foppish monarch, moonlight picnics and hanky panky in the nude with his male servants add to the fascinating tale of a little boy lost.
Renate has named this her favourite song in the whole Amon Duul catalogue.

Leaving behind the fateful old charming Ludwig we end the first part of the album with the eight minute long tale of ‘Mr.Krauts Jinx’. A heavily German toned vocal from Karrer sets up the story of our unfortunate character Mr.Kraut, more of that tongue in cheek approach of self-disdain.
Our character is exploring the Valley Of Kings in Egypt on some cheap package tour I expect though this one ends with him being beamed up by extra terrestrials. This unforeseen addition to his holiday sees him travel through the cosmos before he is promptly placed in a space zoo as the latest exhibit. Some anthropologist type of table turning or reference to the search by right wing ideologist for a white superman we can’t be sure. But over the course of the song we go from a warm acoustic introduction in the vain of Dylan before we progress to what amounts to some thrashing out rock aspirations.
The end of our story is a kind of positive as Mr.Kraut is thrown a concubine of well-equipped proportions to spend his eternity with; our man now has a smile on his face.
A final refrain of “Cause future ain’t tomorrow, future is today” rings out in uplifting defiance or because ones fate is finally sealed.
Karrer seems to have a few problems with singing this track, as he almost goes out of tune with some of the lines.
I’m at odds with this track as it remains in my eyes a bit of a filler and lets the whole album down with its almost Euro embarrassing direction.

The second part of the album starts with the country rock inspired buoyant jaunt of ‘Wide-Angle’. Renate is at her ‘All Years Round’ best as she reminisces about the days of self abandon in the Munich communes. Dropping acid and hanging onto every word of a lost love interest that long since moved on and left the original principles of change back at the bed-sit.
Both the aspirations and drugs are now replaced in the stars backstage with “compromised cocktails” lavishly bestowed upon our band by the new suit wearing management. I can’t help but think this is a dig at how their music has been adopted into a more commercial arena along with bands like Can who after 7 or 8 years have finally to a point compromised their sound.
‘Three Eyed Overdrive’ is another one of those instrumental interludes, which features more haunting synths and organs. This time the main thrust is a pulsating synth that becomes pretty disturbing as it moodily stews away.

Karrer delivers a heavy burdening thick German accent in the next tune ‘Emigrant Song’. Cuckolding a parody driven lament to the story of the first German settlers to try and make their way in the USA. Escaping all the loons and stiffs from back home they hope to take a slice of the new world but end up in the inhospitable lands of Sierra Nevada. It would take brave men indeed to tame this mountainous region which had the worst of both climates, it could be either stiflingly melting hot or become snow bound frozen tomb.
Some stereotyping of German traits is delivered with an outburst of banjo and homage to the Native Indians history as penned by Bob Dylan.

The paintings of Otto Dix, Max Beckmann and George Grosz influence the Weimar Republic hedonism of ‘Loosey Girls’.
Heavy doses of Pink Floyd era ‘Meddle’ are played out over this alluring jazz number, which features a saxophone solo and the hard pressed vocals of Karrer.
A cabaret inspired world of depravity in the days before the stirrings of the far right put an end to such loose times, this song weaves a heartfelt poem of woe as our prostitute heroine falls into a society of despair. It all sounds like Karrer has seen it happen too many times, though it has quite a moving melody and hits the right spot even though it carries some sentimentality.
‘Top Of The Mud’ ups the tempo as we get a heavy rock rendition of blues that ends in a glam infused knock at the current music scene. Renate and Karrer sing in unison as they lampoon their own route from space rock troubadours playing music from another dimension to the more structured ambitions of recent years. With lines like “might not be much fun, without any fans” they comment on their own situation within the industry and sound jaded and knocked about by the increasing lack of faith in what they are doing. Though it is unfair as this album could be their best.

Confidently sweeping in is the heavy South American tango tinged ‘Dreams’. Passionate Cuban like sounds and melody infused with the ruminants of a flamingo style shindig add to this track that has Karrer swoon about sharing thoughts of a love that got away through his dreams.
A segue way instrumental ‘Gala Gnome’ intrudes proceedings with an ambient brief interlude. Delayed synth combined with a low engine like hum produce an unnerving breather before the next song ‘5.5.55’ arrives to much anticipation.
Better known as the 5th of May 1955 this is the date that West Germany gained full sovereignty, though the US kept its presence there hoping to put off any plans the Soviets might have creeping over the boarder.
The economic miracle of which this track speaks started off through the seeds of the Marshall plan and catapulted the Germans to becoming one of worlds most productive and eventually rich economies. By 1973 they had help found the G6 nations group and became the industrial capital of Europe, all within thirty years of the end of the war.
Contrary to belief they didn’t exactly get away with it easily as both culturally and scientifically all intellectual property was either appropriated by the US or swallowed up into the allied nations own companies.
Both France and the UK received more money through the Marshall plan then Germany, it wasn’t until the Eighties that we in the UK paid our debt off. Germany had paid a higher interest fee off and eventually by the mid Seventies had got rid of its debt.
All this is adhered to in the song as this rock heavy jolting tune asks what could have been, space programmes are both mentioned in the sense of lost opportunity but also pilloried as being paid for by those who can’t afford it.
A reference is also made to the Kraupp dynasty, a 400 year old industrial family who owned some of the biggest steel and ammunitions factories in the country. Sympathetically playing to whoever was in charge at the time the family business survived most leaderships. A cosy relationship with the Nazi party helped them get all the major contracts to supply the army.
Alfried Kraupp was head of the company at the time of the thirties and forties, an opportune shady wheeler-dealer he used slave labour during the war supplied by an ever-helpful Herr Hitler. Alfried got cold feet after the failure of the German invasion of Russia and started to siphon off money and try to keep a distance from the regime. After the war he was put up for war crimes and received a 12 year sentence and made to sell off his company, but here’s the sickening part. No one brought his business and after spending half his initial sentence incarcerated he was allowed out to take control again. This reinforces in part the underlying mistrust by the next generation who inevitably ended up trying to overthrow the system.

At the end of ‘5.5.55’ there is a short interjection. In the style of a shock jock US radio interview, a rambling 80 syllables a second ranter puts across questions to Hitler as though he was questioning the leader of some band. Hitler answers with snippets of his original speeches as our DJ mockingly goads him. This interview builds up with what sounds like an audience waiting in a theatre for the performance to begin. All of a sudden they all break out into a feverent applause and cheering as Amon Duul II strike up their last jam. It becomes apparent that this audience is the one at Nuremburg.
The six minute instrumental ‘La Krautoma’ is based on the popular South American derived ‘La Paloma’, an old folk type song that has been recreated a million times across every country. Hell Elvis used it for his hit ‘No More’.
This space rock balling freak out mixes in the old country tune as Peter Leopold lets rip with one of his most ambitious drum solos of all time.
Aggressive guitars intercede as notes are left on sustain and put through pitch shifters, whilst all hell breaks loose as pure flights of fancy take hold of the band.
As the last galactic charging rhythms and effects fade out ‘Excessive Spray’ draws this grand opus to a close.
Military played recall on the snare accompanied by ‘Yeti’ era subtle ambient stirrings end in triumph. Falk’s synth has its last say with some Gothic pretensions, whilst we feel a sudden sadness loom over the horizon. Never again would we hear Amon Duul II in such a creative manner, complete sounding even if it is a move away from the improvised jams of yore.

So ends Krautrocks most overtly ambitious and aspiring work of art, a beacon of farce that attracts only those willing to learn and willing to experience a direction in music rarely repeated.
To be fair I’ve dissected this album to the point of obsession but hope in doing so that my enthusiasm sends you in the right direction and that you don’t dismiss the record as folly or high jinx theatrics.
Though I hate bands who gabble on about their influences, Kasabian’s unexpected nod to ‘Made In Germany’ may give it some attention, the richly deserved sort of attention that bands like Neu! and Can attract with ease. Though these guys sound practically stiff and cold in comparison to this.

Amon Duul II - 'Made In Germany' 1975.

DISCOGRAPHY:-

1969 – ‘Phallus Dei’

1970 – ‘Yeti’

1971 – ‘Dance Of The Lemmings/ Tanz der Lemminge’

1972 – ‘Carnival In Babylon’

‘Wolf City’

‘Utopia’ (Side project)

1973 – ‘Live In London’ (Live)

‘Vive La Trance’

1974 – ‘Hi-Jack’

‘Lemmingmania’ (Compilation)

1975 – ‘Made In Germany’

1976 – ‘Pyragony X’

1977 -  ‘Almost Alive’

1979 – ‘Only Human’

1981 – ‘Vortex’

1987 – ‘Anthology’ (Compilation)

1989 – ‘Milestones’ (Compilation)

1992 – ‘Live In Concert :BBC recording from 1973 (Live)

1996 – ‘Eternal Flashback’

‘Kobe’ (Reconstructions)

‘Nada Moonshine’

‘Live In Tokyo’ (Live)

1997 – ‘Flawless’ (Compilation)

1999 – ‘The UA Years: 1969-1974’ (Compilation)

2000 – ‘Manana’ (Compilation)

Official site:-

http://www.amonduul.de/main.html

PART 9:- We’re off to Cologne next as we leave our Munich friends behind for the first part in the series on Krautrocks most popular group Can.

The freethinking improvised masters of everything from west coast rock to world music via cut up experimentation, changed music forever during the Seventies.
We kick off with their first album ‘Monster Movie’, heavily influenced by The Grateful Dead, Hendrix and that West Coast of the US psychedelic rock. This record includes some pretty amazing beats and playing from the guys.

Dominic Valvona.

Well, some sort of healthcare bill will pass, most likely with a watered down opt-out provision. Obama is miscalculating the benefits when he pushes Reid for a trigger provision (even less effectual than the opt-out). It is not difficult to divine the main reason for that: his courtship of Olypia Snowe. She has already stated she will not vote for the bill if it has an opt-out provision, though she might support a trigger. However, the apparent bipartisanship that would come along with her vote is illusory. Most rank-and-file conservatives do not even see her as Republican, so it is hard to imagine even a shred of the historical acknowledgement of Obama’s bill after it passes from either the the Republican caucus, or conservative Americans. It is uncertain on how the moderates will view it. On the one side they are not so dogmatic in their opposition to the liberal agenda, on the other, more and more of them are tuning to Fox News. The only thing that is certain is that the Democratic in-fighting between moderates and liberals is good for the party. It shows Americans that the debate is already focused within the Democratic party, further making the G.O.P. irrelevant to the debate. We must not forget that this was Lyndon B. Johnson’s strategy in the period before and during the 1964 elections. As conservatives liked to complain, he was everywhere: on the left, in the center, and on the right. As a result, the Democrats won their biggest landslide in the 20th century after that. Ultimately, passing the strongest healthcare bill will confuse a portion of right-wing leaning moderates as the benefits of bigger coverage will not be contingent on someone’s political orientation.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam. More and more pundits seem to invoke the most destructive conflict of the Cold War for America in talking about present course in Vietnam. There exist similarities, but they are indeed more of the general any-type-of-war ones like “Win the hearts of locals”. Obama should either provide the 40,000 troops required by the military, but only if he is able to push enough for a revaluation of objectives, or he should decrease the involvement there. It is laughable to hear some analysts say that the McChrystal’s request will allow for an Iraqi-style surge there. For that to happen, Obama would have to send 500,000 troops, not 40,000. If there is one thing that cannot be stressed enough: this war cannot be won militarily, only politically and economically. Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the elections and it seems that Karzai will win no matter what, despite the fact that the rerun was ordered precisely because of his malfeasance. Al Qaeda has no role in Afghanistan anymore and efforts should be made at economic development and bribing the more moderate Taliban warlords. Any decision Obama will make is virtually bad because of the nature of the conflict and because of the “dithering” during the Bush/Cheney years. The best way, I think, would be to create sort of a limited Marshall Plan there, funded largely by national security funding (saving money from everything but procurement), and spend it on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and most importantly, Afghanistan’s police and military force. No troop increase. If successful, such a strategy could allow the U.S. to leave the country in 1-3 years. Whatever scenario is taken, the US will probably stay there for another 2-8 years, largely due to the previous 8 years of Bushian disinterest and focus on Iraq.

Obama is being criticized for his lackluster efforts in repealing DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell). While this criticism is well deserved, there is an often overlooked element that is good about the ages it takes to repeal DADT, namely the growing discussion within the military about it propelled by the media’s interest in the topic. In real terms, what that means, is that once DADT is repealed (either right after healthcare passes, or summer next year so that the promise to repeal it is fulfilled and yet DADT does not come too close to the midterms) there will hopefully be real action to actually implement the non-discriminatory provisions of the bill. Many liberals are rightly outraged at the policy, but they fail to acknowledge that in most countries there exists a de facto discrimination because of the lack of equal rights implementation mechanisms even though there does not exist a DADT-like law. Who cares if DADT is repealed if there will be no mechanisms to enforce it in local military chains of command. In other words, the wait is good. In the end it will produce a sound policy with robust implementation tools. Furthermore, we should be wary of efforts of many pleading Obama to sign an executive order to stop the implementation of DADT. Many are enticed by the rule-by-decree governance, yet we should not forget that this practice broke the American government during the Bush years and corrupted executive power, even if this time it would be used in a right cause.

A Blockade Against Humanity - Español

By Atilio A. Boron

English translation: Machetera

On October 28^th, the United Nations General Assembly will once again bring a resolution to a vote, requiring the United States to put an end to the blockade against Cuba in effect since 1961.  Just as has occurred each time since 1991 up until the present day, that resolution will be approved practically unanimously, ratifying the international community’s condemnation of the United States and reinforcing Washington’s tremendous isolation in the debate, due to a policy that has not only brutally chastised the Cuban people but also constitutes a threat to humanity as a whole.

Conscious that by its nature, it violates the most basic norms of international law and human rights, the empire’s publicists and their local spokesmen have unleashed, as on so many other occasions, a persistent semantic battle aimed at confusing and misleading worldwide public opinion.  To this end they resort to a euphemism: they refer to the blockade as an “embargo” and present it as though it were merely a commercial matter.  This is how they hide the far reaching U.S. blockade against Cuba: a blockade that is economic, commercial, financial and technological, but also international (penalizing as it does, companies in third countries who trade with Cuba, and hindering Cuba’s diplomatic relations with the rest of the world); informational (by preventing Cubans from gaining access to high-speed broadband internet); social (making the re-unification of Cuban families separated by emigration difficult or impossible); and cultural, by impeding the free movement of artists, writers, intellectuals and scientists between Cuba and the United States.[1]

It is a blockade that is not only illegitimate in light of civilization’s highest values but also a blatant infringement of international law,  designed to bring Cuba to its knees by causing hunger, illness and desperation among its people.  In short: it is a repeat of the barbaric policy of laying siege to a defenseless city by causing all sorts of hardships and misfortunes to its inhabitants, in the hope of weakening their resistance or bringing about a generalized insurrection against its legitimate leaders.  If anything, it is a cruel and inhumane policy which the empire applies solely and exclusively against Cuba, updating its old and unhealthy obsession of wanting to take over that island, even at the cost of violating international law a thousand times and trampling on the highest ethical norms that define the civilized co-existence of people and nations.

There are no precedents in worldwide history even remotely comparable to the blockade against Cuba, maintained without interruption by the United States over 49 years.  Nothing even remotely similar has been applied by Washington against many countries which for one reason or another, have (or used to have) serious conflicts with the United States: it never blockaded the Soviet Union or China, for obvious reasons, but neither did it blockade Vietnam, nor Qaddafi’s Libya (not even after blaming Libya for the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, killing 259 passengers in-flight, plus 11 on the ground) nor North Korea, nor Iran, nor any other country.  Only Cuba, a sweet American colonial dream that became – thanks to the glorious liberating campaign of the July 26th Movement – a painful nightmare that day and night shakes the minds of the imperialists.

Blinded by its pathological ambition to take over the unredeemed island it considers its own, the United States is in breach of Resolution 63/7, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on October 29, 2008, when 185 member states voted in favor of the immediate lifting of the blockade.[2] It is not only the George W. Bush administration which has ignored the U.N. General Assembly’s recommendation, but its successor as well – the current Nobel Peace Prize winner no less, who has continued with the same policy of maintaining the laws, regulations and administrative procedures which serve to support the blockade.

In effect, nothing’s been done, or even said, relative to the “Trading With the Enemy” or “Foreign Aid” laws which were the first pieces of legislation with which the blockade of Cuba began.  Not to mention the “Export Administration Law” or since we’re talking about euphemisms, the “Cuban Democracy Act,” better known as the Torricelli Law.  This infamous piece of legislation was enacted under Bush Sr., in 1992, and it enabled Washington’s strengthening of its economic measures against the island, as well as granting normative support to the blockade’s extra-territorial nature, given that the legislation prohibits foreign-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies from engaging in transactions with Cuba or Cuban nationals, and prevents ships from third countries which have docked in Cuba from entering U.S. territory for 180 days afterwards, among other restrictions.

The euphemistically named “Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act,” better known as the Helms-Burton law deserves its own paragraph.  Enacted by the U.S. Congress and Bill Clinton in March of 1996, it aims to extend the extra-territorial scope of the blockade and put still more obstacles in the way of foreign investment in Cuba.  The law also limits the White House’s prerogatives to suspend the policy, while it establishes the possibility of bringing claims in U.S. courts against the managers of foreign companies (or their families) who invest in businesses or properties “confiscated” by the Cuban revolution.

In view of this background, it’s clear that the innocent “embargo” constitutes a criminal act: based on the provisions of Article II, paragraph “c” of the Geneva Convention of 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the blockade qualifies as genocide.  Furthermore, if the “Declaration Regarding Maritime War” (adopted by the London Naval Conference in 1909) is considered, the U.S. blockade against Cuba is an act of economic warfare.  Consequently, it is not an “embargo” but a set of rules and policies that international law regards as genocidal and criminal.  This is why the condemnation of the blockade is not a strictly Cuban concern, but something that worries the international community – a lot.  The attempt to grant extra-territoriality to U.S. legislation, as arrogant as it is absurd, is a threat to world peace and a vicious attack on the self-determination and national sovereignty of people and states.  In line with this policy, the White House has penalized plenty of U.S. and European companies for doing business with Cuba.  Because of this, patients from Cuba or any other country who are treated in Cuban clinics have no access to new diagnostic equipment, technology, or medicine, because even if they are produced (or made available) in third countries, the blockade’s laws prohibit their sale or transfer to Cuba if their components or programs, even if only in small part, originate in the United States.

From an economic point of view, the blockade has caused enormous damage to Cuba.  Extremely conservative estimates (which underestimate the true impact) show that in current dollar value, the total is something more than $236 billion dollars.  It’s an astronomical sum when the size of the Cuban economy is taken into account.  And not only that: it’s also very significant in itself, given that it is approximately double the expenditure of the Marshall Plan, spent by the United States in Europe to finance post-war recovery.[3] This figure does not include the direct damage caused by sabotage and terrorist acts encouraged, organized and financed from the United States.  Knowing the great strides made by the Cuban revolution in fields such as health, culture and education, it’s easy to imagine all that might have been achieved had it not been forced to deal with the enormous financial and economic hemorrhage generated by the blockade.  But this was exactly imperialism’s point: this policy has been applied in order to prove the non-viability of a non-capitalist development path and the incurable “inefficiency” of socialist planning, thereby provoking all kinds of illness and suffering among the people.  In their hallucinations, imperialism’s strategists hoped that such deprivations would trigger the long-awaited “regime change” in Cuba.  History refuted their expectations.  We saw this same destabilizing and incurably anti-democratic attempt in the decision taken by President Richard Nixon, the same night that Salvador Allende won the first plurality in the 1970 presidential elections in Chile: thwarting the Chilean economy so that later, on the basis of the frustration and resentment that this would produce, the conditions would be created that would pave the way for the military coup of 1973.

Has anything changed since the arrival of Obama to the White House?  Very little.  The new administration has introduced a modest easing of the blockade, but these measures simply modify certain marginal aspects which do not change the substance of the matter.  Nevertheless, a heavy propaganda campaign has been launched, trying to present Obama as the mentor of a new policy that overcomes the nefarious legacy of the ten U.S. presidents who preceded him.[4] But in fact, the innovations introduced were limited to the following:

a)     The elimination of restrictions on family visits for Cubans resident in the United States with blood relations on the island, up to the third-degree.

b)    The same for restrictions on remittances by Cuban-Americans to their family members in Cuba – still limited to third-degree blood relations and excluding members of the Cuban government and the Cuban communist party.

c)     An expanded range of items that may be sent as gifts.

d)    The granting of licenses for U.S. companies to expand certain telecommunication operations with Cuba.

In short, these are initiatives that, while partially repairing a serious injustice – returning to Cubans resident in the United States the right to visit their family members in Cuba; something taken from them by the government of George W. Bush – are insufficient and of very limited scope, given that they go no farther than returning to the situation existent in 2004, when the economic blockade was already being applied with full force.

Furthermore, and despite the complete repeal of the limitations on the frequency and duration of the abovementioned visits and an increase on the limit of daily expenditures allowed the visitors, Cubans resident in the United States without family in Cuba remain prohibited from traveling there, and the unusual abuse of the right of U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba remains.  It is the only country in the world they are prevented from visiting by their government.

What can be hoped for from Obama?  Regrettably, little or nothing, and not only on the subject of the blockade but in the most diverse areas of public policy.  The reason, described in detail in the already cited book, is that the current occupant of the White House only controls the marginal levers of the U.S. state apparatus while state power rests firmly in the hands of the “permanent government” of the United States, that framework that in its incipient form brought about a serious warning from President Dwight Eisenhower,- when in his farewell speech, he denounced the ominous role that what he referred to as the “military-industrial complex” was already beginning to play.  In our time, that complex has grown inordinately, to a degree that was hardly imaginable or thinkable just half a century ago.  It has not only grown in terms of its quantitative gravitation; its degree of articulation among the different members of its alliance and his capacity to determine public policy have also improved qualitatively, and not just in the United States, but through its allies, across the empire.  In any case, the declarations of Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden, at the so-called “Progressive Governance Summit” held in Santiago, Chile, in March of 2009, doesn’t feed very many expectations.  On that occasion, Biden assured that “The United States will maintain the embargo as a tool to apply pressure on Cuba.”  His words were not denied, neither by the White House nor the State Department.

The Cuban government is absolutely right when it points out that “The embargo violates International Law.  It is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.  It constitutes a transgression on the right to peace, development and security of a sovereign state.  In its essence and its aims, it is an act of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat against the stability of a country.  It constitutes a flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the rights of an entire people.  It is also in violation of the constitutional rights of the American people since it denies them the freedom to travel to Cuba.  Moreover, it violates the sovereign rights of many other states because of its extra-territorial nature.”[5]

Cuba is not alone in demanding an end to the blockade.  The overwhelming majority of countries support its petition.  However, despite the announced claims to initiate a “new policy” toward Cuba and Latin America, the Obama administration has given no indication whatsoever that it will try to lift the blockade.  This brings to mind the question that President Hugo Chávez formulated in the context of the recent U.N. General Assembly: Who is the real Obama? The one who says lovely phrases or the one who validates the coup d’etat in Honduras?  We might add: He who wishes to promote multilateralism and re-establish U.S. relations with Latin America on new terms, or he who persists in maintaining the blockade against Cuba?  Until now, history’s verdict says the latter.  It cannot be discounted that he may change, although it seems increasingly unlikely.  The passage of time plays against him.

[2] Of course, it’s not the only resolution ignored by Washington.  For a detailed examination of this matter, see Atilio A. Boron and Andrea Vlahusic, El lado oscuro del imperio. La violación de los derechos humanos por Estados Unidos [The Dark Side of the Empire. The United States’ Violation of Human Rights] (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Luxemburg, 2009)

[3] This, according to a study done by the Argentinean economist Alex Kicillof, “El Plan Marshall estuvo en la base de la Unión Europea,” [The Marshall Plan Was the Basis for the European Union] Página/12, June 21, 2007

[4] Actually, not all of them had the same attitude.  In one of his reflections, Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz maintained that “Of all the presidents of the United States, and those who aspire to that office, I only met one who, for ethical-religious reasons, was not an accomplice to the brutal terrorism against Cuba: James Carter. That assumes, of course, another President who forbade that United States officials should be used to assassinate Cuban leaders. That was Gerald Ford, who replaced Nixon after the Watergate scandal.” In September of 1977, Carter opened the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Cf. Fidel Castro Ruz, “Submission to Imperial Politics,” August 27, 2007. http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/2007/ing/f270807i.html

[5] See the already cited “Report by Cuba on Resolution 63/7 of the United Nations General Assembly.”

Argentinean sociologist and author Atilio Boron is a friend of Tlaxcala.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

I’ve had a heart for Africa for some time.  One of our World Vision sponsor children is from Kenya.  We’ve been writing Dennis for 10 years and I’ve been able to visit with him three times on mission trips there.  My wife and I are planning to go to Kenya on another mission trip in 2010 (this will be her first trip, so we’re excited about that).  We’ve found very effective ministries there and seen firsthand how far money goes in helping the poorest of the poor and how the hospital we support provides excellent care to people who would otherwise have none.

But even though I have no intention of backing off our personal commitments there, I agreed with the findings of The Business of Africa (Forbes.com).  If you aren’t careful with charitable endeavors you can do more harm than good.  Of course you want to help people today, but without good foresight and wisdom you may be hurting countless people tomorrow.  The Law of Unintended Consequences can be brutal.  In many areas these good intentions have just institutionalized poverty. 

I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are some snippets:

$2 trillion (in today’s dollars) has been transferred from rich countries to poor ones over 50 years, with most of that going to Africa. The U.S. has spent $300 billion on Africa since 1970. The result: GDP per capita in Moyo’s home country of Zambia is under $500, less than it was in 1960. The most heavily aid-dependent countries, she writes, have negative or flat annual growth over the last 30 years. Moyo proposes that Africa be weaned off all aid in five years so that its economies can fend for themselves.

They propose that the U.S. government make direct loans to businesses and then direct the repayments of principal to host governments for use in building roads, electric grids, schools and the like. This was how the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after the war.

There are 1.4 billion people living on less than $500 a year–what the World Bank classifies as extreme poverty. It would cost $700 billion to double their incomes, assuming that all of that money would even get to the recipients. At $1,000 a year, the recipients would still be poor, and we’d have spent seven times the world’s current aid budget (and given the state of the global economy, richer nations are more likely to cut back at the moment).

In the original Marshall Plan, which cost just $115 billion in today’s dollars, the U.S. gathered all of the willing European nations and set up country-specific Economic Cooperation Administrations. These councils were granted money by the U.S. and operated as development banks. They loaned money to businesses that met with the board’s approval. Each ECA was made up of appointed business leaders from the U.S. and Europe. As the loans were paid back, the money was turned over to the government, which then used the money to build highways, phone lines and a regulatory apparatus for the business community.

Of course, a lot of African leaders will oppose the plan or refuse to go along. The original Marshall Plan offered assistance to the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries, but they declined. In the case of Africa, regimes have been propped up by the abundance of aid flows.

“To some leaders the system isn’t broken,” Duggan says. “They get their cut of the aid dollars, the big house, the Mercedes and the trips to Europe, so what’s the problem?”

Moyo writes about an African manufacturer of mosquito nets being put out of business by a charitable antimalaria campaign that gave away nets for free. Hubbard says that there will always be a need for charity and a human drive to give food and money to those who lack them. He’d like to see charity look more in Africa the way it does in America, where charities give to the poor but aren’t the first or only solution.

I encourage people to give generously and with discernment while at the same time promoting government policies that will have real and lasting differences to countless people.

After World War II, the U.S. was left with the responsibility of taking care of the battered nations across Europe.

George C. Marshall came up with a plan to revitalize the economies and help stabilize the region.

We have an earlier post which includes a transcript of Marshall’s speech as well as questions and answers for students.

Today’s posting includes Truman convincing Congress to approve the plan.

Check out our new World History Modern Era: 1945-1970, as well as the U.S. History Cold War Era: Truman to Kennedy PowerPoints for further exploration of this topic.

Human beings are, by our natures, creative, social, and morally-oriented. That makes it particularly shameful that our politics tend to be so divisive, polarized, and disillusioning.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about our political debates is that we manage to use them to pit our most treasured moral values against each other. Given the reality of limited influence for individuals and groups, leaders posture. One leader will try to “own” some moral value, like social justice, and then propose a policy that she feels encapsulates it. A different leader who disagrees has two choices: either try to outdo the first leader in terms of the same moral value, or try to find an overriding moral value that can compete with the first one. Unsurprisingly, this often leads to poisonous politics as real morals clash with each other.

We need to be more eager for intellectual debate when we see moral clashes, rather than trying to divvy up morals between political factions. When leaders are willing to aim for reconciliation instead of a winner-takes-all approach to politics and morality, the results can be both widely satisfying and highly effective. Canada did just that last year when debating environmental policies. Concerned with the impact of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, Liberal members of Parliament began to advocate for a carbon tax on the grounds of being good stewards of the Earth. Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, countered that economic prosperity and the welfare of the poor would be compromised by higher tax levels. Instead of trying to pit national prosperity against conservation, though, Canadian politicians found a compromise. They instituted a carbon tax while cutting income taxes proportionately. That way, the government would still have as much revenue for public programs, the economy would be able to continue to grow, and the atmosphere would not be under as much of a threat from Canadian carbon emissions.

America took a similarly reasoned and respectful attitude to foreign policy debates in the aftermath of the Second World War. As communism crept over Eastern Europe, American conservatives were concerned with the possibility that Soviet domination would topple weak governments in Italy, Turkey, Greece, and elsewhere in the region. Progressives, however, were hesitant to support a confrontational stance towards the Soviets, as that could have threatened the fragile peace that the world was entering into. Instead of pitting the preservation of liberal democracy against the need for peace, American politicians came together to support the Marshall Plan, under which the U.S. government subsidized the economic recovery of weak liberal democracies. America looked humanitarian, thus avoiding the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union, while still making its position in the world more secure.

The Canadian carbon tax switch and the Marshall Plan are examples of excellent statesmanship. By making appeals to reason and reconciling valid moral concerns on competing sides of the political aisle, both countries affected popular change that is good for the world. We need this same approach towards the political issues dividing our country today.

Take economic fairness. Free markets have generated extraordinary amounts of wealth for our country, and even in the midst of the current economic recession, America still has the largest economy that the world has ever seen. There are still many poor people in this country, though, who go to sleep without a roof over their heads, or even a meal in their stomachs. Both general economic prosperity and the welfare of the poor are valid moral concerns. Too often they are pitted against each other. But do they have to be? Experience says maybe not. Look at 1994 welfare reform, for example. Wanting fewer taxes and less government spending to strengthen the economy, Republicans wanted to cut social service funding. Democrats, led by President Bill Clinton, wanted to make life easier for the poorest of Americans. Through compromise and sound debate, American politicians created what came to be known as “workfare.” The poor could still receive state assistance, but they would have to demonstrate a willingness to receive job training and look for work. This creative policy managed to reduce spending and bureaucracy while still improving the status of the poor, who gained higher expectations of themselves and more responsibility for their own lives, in place of dependence on the government.

All too often, we assume that moral insight only belongs to the leaders who agree with policies that we want. We live in a complex and politicized democracy, where it is easy to assume that moral values can never be fully honored. Either we can be good stewards of the environment, or we can be prosperous. Either we can support the poor, or we can balance the budgets. Either we can support peace, or we can defend our ideals abroad. Either we can respect free choice, or we can honor traditional values. Either we can serve justice, or we can show mercy.

Given our nature as creative beings who value reason and social harmony, though, only one choice is truly inevitable: we can take an either-or approach to public morality, or we can strive for what we all recognize as good.

This pursuit of the common good, and this uncompromising approach to moral values, will need more statesmanship and less politicking. We as the public will need a better foundation for our government than moral relativism and power struggles. We will need to recognize that we have shared moral values, not that morality is too personal to be public. We will need to expect our leaders to truly lead our country, both as philosophers willing to take moral questions seriously and as kings ready to negotiate over the best way to honor the common good.

Cultural renewal and a confidence that morality is not a zero-sum game are the way to make this world a better place and overcome our pointless divisions for the sake of real, productive debate. Are we ready, as citizens, to take on that kind of intellectual responsibility and patience in order to let our democratic republic be all that it is capable of being?

there was a great article about bds by sousan hammad in counterpunch last month, which begins with a great fanon quote and engages in an important analysis of the psychological complications involved when trying to educate palestinians about bds:

“An underdeveloped people must prove, by its fighting power, its ability to set itself up as a nation, and by the purity of every one of its acts, that it is, even to the smallest detail, the most lucid, the most self-controlled people.”

–Frantz Fanon, “A Dying Colonialism”

There is an echoing sentiment here in Ramallah that Israeli milk is more “tasteful” and “nutritious” than Palestinian milk. The same goes for wine, apples, dates, juice, and just about everything else…except for maybe olives. In fact, Palestinian shopkeepers even stock Israeli-made milk at the front of their store while Palestinian milk sits in a far-to-reach crate collecting dust in the corner.

Palestinians do this for two reasons: one is they truly believe their senses, the other, and possibly more understanding, is because selling Israeli products yield a much higher profit.

A recent study by the Swiss Development Center, an organization that aims to promote Palestinian products, found that Palestinians within the higher socioeconomic strata tend to buy more Israeli goods than those in the lower strata. In French colonial-Martinique, mothers would sing to their children in French instead of their native language because it was more “civilized” to speak the colonizer’s language.

Appropriating the colonialist brand seems to imply prestige – a product, perhaps, of the inferiority complex – but if you push this aside as a psychological epiphenomenon that is a result of colonialism and consider the economic dependency Palestinians are forced to live with, one way to overcome the subjugation of the colonialist-settler (thus racist and discriminatory) policies would be to boycott Israeli products. Besides forcing Palestinians to consume their own products, it would promote and develop a domestic industry and manufactured goods. If it takes a pyramid to list all the nutritional benefits of Palestinian produce, then onward with the label! Whatever it may be, the Palestinians must ascertain that they can have a functioning society without being indebted to Israel.

This is, essentially, what the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is about. Using Apartheid South Africa as a model, a coalition of Palestinian groups felt compelled to combat Israel’s economic power over Palestine, and, in 2005 the BDS movement was created.

Besides placing political pressure on corporations to divest from Israel, BDS focuses strongly on its consumer boycott efforts, which according to the BDS website, is to put “pressure on companies whose exports are linked to some of the most evident aspects of the Israeli occupation and apartheid.”

One of the many campaigns of BDS is to target stores that sell Israeli products and persuade them to stop stocking them. While much of the campaign is based on Israel’s exports to the West, activists here in the West Bank also try to deter Palestinian shopkeepers from selling produce that is grown in Israeli settlements. (Again, these yield more profit for Palestinians.) It is highly unlikely, though, that Palestinians will collectively and instantaneously dump their Israeli products for Palestinian manufactured goods and produce because an activist tells them so. They want to know if there is proof of sustainability.

A BDS Victory

Enter the story of Veolia and the light rail.

In 1902, Theodore Herzl wrote in his book, Altneuland, that the future of Jerusalem would be made of “modern neighborhoods with electric lines, tree-lined boulevards” and that Jerusalem would become “a metropolis of the 20th century”.

Materialized a century later as the Jerusalem light rail project, the father of Zionism’s idea of an electric-lined-boulevard is halfway in construction. When, and if, completed, the light rail will conveniently accommodate Jewish-Israelis, connecting West Jerusalem to Jewish settlements. The light rail travels through Palestinian neighborhoods, but makes no stops and as one Israeli blogger put it “…all the windows have been reinforced to be resistant to stones and Molotov cocktails.”

But officials are now facing a major setback: In June, Ha’aretz reported that Veolia, a French transportation company that was to operate the light rail post-construction, abandoned the project because of the “political pressure” it was facing: a direct implication of the BDS “Derail Veolia and Alstom Campaign”.

Said an exultant Omar Barghouti, a BDS founding member:

“Veolia’s reported intention to withdraw from the illegal JLR project gives the BDS movement an important victory: success in applying concerted, intensive pressure on a company that is complicit in the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, enough to compel it to withdraw from an illegal project. This may well usher in a new era of corporate accountability, whereby companies that are profiting from Israel’s illegal colonial and racist regime over the indigenous people of Palestine will start to pay a real price in profits and image for their collusion.”

The pressure from human rights activists and lawyers throughout Europe battered Veolia, costing it multiple contracts – a loss that amounted to more than $7 billion. From Stockholm to Bordeaux, companies dumped Veolia on account of its stake in a project that violates international law. Veolia, along with Alstom – the engineering enterprise behind the light rail – were taken to a French court by Association France-Palestine Solidarité along with attorneys from the PLO legal counsel. AFPS filed the complaint against Alstom and Veolia in 2007, arguing that the 8.3-mile project violates international law since East Jerusalem is not sovereign Israeli territory. “Our main argument is that the light rail project is intended to serve illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and thus it’s part of illegal settlement infrastructure and by being involved in project, the French companies are violating international law,” says Azem Bishara, an attorney with the Negotiation Support Unit in Ramallah.

When the Arab League organized a boycott of Israel after its colonization of Palestine in 1948, Arab countries refused to deal with Israel by boycotting their products, services and even refusing to allow Israelis into their country. Lebanon and Syria are the only countries that allegedly adhere to the boycott today, as they have yet to sign trade agreements with Israel. The Israeli Chamber of Commerce reported Israel was losing an average of 10 percent in export revenue per year when the boycott was in its prime. This spearheaded the fight by the American Jewish Committee to pressure Congress to pass an anti-boycott legislation. In 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter, who now advocates the window-dressing of Palestinian national independence, signed a law that would impose a fine on American companies that cooperated with the boycott.

It seems safe to assume that this legislative effort by AJC indicated that it, at least, believed the Arab League boycott was having some effect.

Although it was with similar calculations and campaigning that U.S. and European companies pulled out of South Africa over 20 years ago, how do we know companies like Veolia won’t be targeted by anti-boycott Israeli investors? Whether or not Veolia goes through with its withdrawal, the question remains: is it really a victory? And how can an effective boycott promote economic independence so that Palestinian milk will no longer have to be in the dustbin of stores? These are questions the boycott campaign has to confront.

one of the products that is not mentioned in the above article is coca cola, which many palestinians insist is palestinian because the owner of the franchise is palestinian (zahi khoury) and because they bottle it in al bireh, which i’ve written about before. coca cola is one of the most evil companies in the world for so many reasons. but i was delighted to discover a wonderful critique of sonallah ibrahim’s novel the committee. ever since i read his novel zaat i became enamored with his politics and his writing style. i have been dying to read this novel for a while now and finally got around to it this week. (my form of escapism and procrastination all rolled into one delightful novel.) the egyptian narrator of the novel, who is under investigation by an anonymous, foreign, non-Arabic speaking committee described as “consist[ing] entirely of officers, some of whom sometimes wear civilian clothes, or it consists of civilians, some of whom sometimes wear military uniforms,” (111) to whom he reveals the following:

Since its advent, Coca-Cola has been linked with the major trends of the age, sometimes sharing to a large extent in their formation. The American pharmacist Pemberton synthesized it in Atlanta, famous as the capital of Georgia, the birthplace of the American president Carter and of the notorious Ku Klux Klan. This was during 1886, the very year in which the famous Statue of Liberty, that symbol of the New World, was completed.

As for the bottle, it was one product of an American “war of liberation.” Having vanquished the Indians, the United States plunged into the Spanish-American War in Cuba, which ended in 1899, with the proclamation of “independence” for Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. An American soldier, who, coincidentally, had the same name as the great American philosopher of the preceding century, Benjamin Franklin, saw a bottle of a carbonated beverage made from banana syrup. On returning home, he obtained bottling rights for a new product. The bottle’s shape varied until it finally stabilized in the universally recognized form of “a girl with an hourglass figure.”

It may have been Coca-Cola that first shattered the traditional image of the ad, previously a mere description of a product. Thus it laid the cornerstone of that towering structure, that leading art of the age, namely, advertising. Certainly, it broke the long-standing illusion of a relationship between thirst and heat through the slogan: “Thirst knows no season.” It was ahead of its time in the use of radio and neon for advertisements. it sponsored television shows, produced films, and backed new international stars and idols such as actors, the Beatles, and the pioneers of rock and roll, the twist, and pop.

Coca-Cola went through two world wars and emerged from them victorious. It sold five billion bottles during the seven years of World War II. Then it slipped into Europe under the wing of the Marshall Plan, which backed the war-weakened European currencies by means of American products and loans.

It then took its place as a leading consumer product along with Ford cars, Parker pens, Ronson lighters, but still kept its finger on the pulse of today’s ever-changing world. With the advent of the great age of installment plans, and neighbor competing with neighbor for the newest model car with the largest trunk, capable of holding enough groceries to fill the largest fridge, Coca-Cola marketed the family-sized bottle, the “Maxi.”

When the United States cooperated in a new “war of liberation” in Korea, Coca-Cola created the tin can, in order to parachute Coke to the troops. The image of an American opening a can with his teeth has become a symbol of manhood and bravery. However, the can’s importance is not limited to this image or the way in which it displaced the bottle during the subsequent Vietnam War, but is outweighed by something more significant. It inaugurated the age of the “empty”: a container to be discarded after its contents have been consumed.

Without doubt, the success of Coca-Cola goes back primarily to the excellence of the organizational structure it pioneered: the pyramid. The original company comprises the tip, and the independent bottlers and distributors come below it, forming the base. At first, this unique structure enabled it to obtain the necessary financing to saturate the American market. Later, it helped the company avoid Roosevelt’s campaign against monopolies and finally allowed Coca-Cola to infiltrate the world. In opening world markets, the company relied on establishing independent franchises headed by well-known local capitalists in every country. This practice produced astounding results. Most strikingly, the American bottle came to symbolize indigenous nationalism. (19-22)

coca-cola is a metaphor for colonialism, corruption, and consumption in the novel. and he shows precisely how deviously coca-cola (like all foreign franchises of american products) works to make people think that it is somehow “indigenous” because the product is produced locally. even though that product always has to send proceeds home to the u.s., and then, of course, they send them directly back to the zionist entity for investment (see post i linked to earlier on this). ibrahim shows how coca-cola came to invade egypt later in the novel:

As you have learned, your honors, this bottle entered our country at the end of the ’40s and beginning of the ’50s under the aegis of the vast advertising campaign that facilitated its spread to even the most remote villages and hamlets. Coca-Cola became a household word.

After the revolution, Coca-Cola’s popularity soon began to wane. I found out that the Doctor, among other factors, was responsible. To wit, he tried to compete by using a local beverage destined to succeed only for a short while.

However, the crushing blow fell at the beginning of the ’60s, when the Arab governmental agencies boycotting Israel discovered that Coca-Cola had given the Israelis bottling rights. As a result, Coca-Cola was blacklisted and barred from Arab countries. The market was wide open for the Doctor. (73-74)

ibrahim’s narrator gets even more specific in his indictment of coca-cola towards the end of the novel:

Many obscure phenomena are linked to the evolution of this well-known beverage.

For example, I read of a far-reaching crusade launched in 1970 in the United States over the mis-treatment of a quarter million migrant workers on farms controlled by Coca-Cola. I mean farms, not factories. This crusade spread to television and from there to Congress. Senator Walter Mondale, at that time a member of the Committee for Migrant Workers, summoned the president of Coca-Cola to answer officially, before the United States Senate, the accusations leveled against Coca-Cola.

Not three years later, the president of Coca-Cola participated in selecting that same Mondale for membership in the Trilateral Commission I told you about in our first meeting. Then he selected him as vice president to President Carter.

At the same time as Coca-Cola was accused of the theft of a handful of dollars from its workers, we read that it dedicated vast sums for charitable and cultural works ranging from an entire university budget to an important prize for artistic and literary creativity. It also presented a huge grant to the Brooklyn Museum in 1977 to rescue Egyptian pharaonic antiquities from collapse.

Coca-Cola, according to statistics for 1978, distributes two hundred million bottles of soft drinks daily throughout the world, leaving tap water as its only rival. So, now we see it sponsoring projects for the desalinization of sea water, relying on the Aqua Chem Company that I bought a few years ago, in 1970 to be precise.

These contradictions confused me, so I did several studies on Coca-Cola. Its policy was to remain committed to the two basic principles set down by its great founders. The first principle was to make every participant in the Coca-Cola enterprise rich and happy. The second was to restrict its energies to creating a single commodity: the well-known bottle.

But the winds of change that blew in the early ’60s forced a choice between the principles. In order not to sacrifice the first, Coca-Cola preferred to diversify its products. It began by producing other types of carbonated beverages, then extended its interests to farming peanuts, coffee, and tea. It had extensive holdings int hat same state of Georgia where it was founded. its farms neighbored those of the American president Carter, which perhaps was behind its involvement in public affairs, both domestic and international, and thus its policy of diversification grew all out of proportion.

Obviously, this policy couldn’t help but be successful. In this regard, it is sufficient to mention the return of the familiar bottle to both China and Egypt through the initiative in both countries of brave patriots, who acted on their principles.

However, this success produced a strange phenomenon. With modern methods and lower production costs gained by relying on poorly paid migrant workers, Coca-Cola became the largest producer of fresh fruit in the Western world. But, sadly, it found itself forced to dump a large portion of the yield into the sea to keep the world market from collapsing.

There was no solution to this problem except to continue diversifying. Coca-Cola exploited its great assets and expertise in the field of agriculture by sponsoring many nutritional programs in underdeveloped countries, among them a project to farm legumes in Abou Dhabi, undertaken by its subsidiary, Aqua Chem. Likewise, it extensively researched the production of drinks rich in proteins and other nutrients, thereby compensating consumers for the surpluses it had been forced to dump in the ocean. (124-127)

there is so much more to the novel, but i especially love the extended commentary on the evil, insidious inner workings of coke. and, of course, which was one of the first companies to move into occupied iraq and occupied afghanistan? coca cola. here is an article on coca cola’s war profiteering in afghanistan from 2006:

Coca-Cola has returned to war-torn Afghanistan with a gleaming $25m factory, calling the country a ‘missing link’ in its international business.

Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai opened the 60,000sq-metre Coca-Cola bottling plant in capital city Kabul, more than a decade after civil war forced the soft drinks group out of the country.

It is a controversial and risky move for Coca-Cola at a time when violence directed against NATO forces in the country, including American soldiers, appears in danger of spiralling out of control.

Coca-Cola’s Kabul plant will be operated under franchise by local businessman Habib Gulzar, and is expected to focus on core carbonated soft drink brands such as Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite. Bottled water could be added in the future.

Selcuk Erden, president of Coca-Cola’s Southern Eurasia division, which will oversee Afghanistan, said: “Afghanistan was the missing link in our geography and we were following this country very carefully.”

The group said the country had the potential to be a strong emerging market for its drinks.

Critics have suggested Coca-Cola is not what Afghans really need right now.

Afghanistan is ranked as the fifth poorest country in the world by the United Nations. “The depth of poverty in Afghanistan is reflected consistently in all human development indicators, revealing a mosaic of a nation in need of sustained assistance,” a recent UN development report says.

and here is an article on coca cola’s war profiteering in iraq from the guardian by rory carroll:

Coca-Cola has returned to Iraq after an absence of nearly four decades, triggering a cola war in a lucrative but potentially hostile market.

Coke ended its 37-year exile last week by setting up a joint-venture bottling company to compete with Pepsi for 26 million consumers.

The upsides for Coke include a thirst-inducing climate and burgeoning Islamic conservatism which has banned beer and other alcoholic drinks in much of the country.

The downsides, besides Pepsi’s head start, are a raging insurgency and banditry which threaten supply routes, and a perception that Coca-Cola is linked to Israel and “American Zionists”.

Coke withdrew from Iraq in 1968 when the Arab League declared a boycott because of business ties to Israel, leaving Pepsi to dominate the Middle East market for soft drinks. The boycott ended in 1991, but sanctions and wars kept Coke out of Iraq.

After a trickle of Coca-Cola imports from neighbouring countries, the company is attempting a proper comeback by launching a joint venture with a Turkish company, Efes Invest, and its Iraqi partner HMBS, which will reportedly bottle the Coke in Dubai and distribute it across Iraq.

“A local bottling company will employ local people to do this,” a Coca-Cola spokesman said yesterday. “This happens in most of the 200 countries in which we operate around the world, despite the perception of us as an American company.”

The response in Baghdad yesterday was mixed. One drink wholesaler, Abbas Salih, said the initiative was doomed. “Coca-Cola does business with those who are shooting our brothers in Palestine,” he said. “How can we drink it?”

when i was searching for material on why coca cola is evil i stumbled upon this great article from 2004 that i had never found that encapsulates the numerous reasons why one should boycott coca cola by mohammed mesbahi, which is long, but well worth the read for its variety of issues (health, environmental, political, etc.):

Coca Cola was invented in the United States in 1886 as a medicine, rather than a drink, to stimulate the brain and the nervous system, from a mixture of coca leaves and kola nuts, sweetened with sugar, hence the name Coca Cola. It was not until 1893 that Coca Cola was sold and promoted as a drink. Gradually the cocaine was eliminated, but in order to maintain the stimulant effect caffeine was substituted.

Phosphoric acid (0.055%) is now added to increase the fizziness and zingy taste. This gives the drink a pH of 2.8, making it almost as acidic as lemon juice (pH 2.2), which is why more sugar has to be added in order for it to taste sweet. Weak acidic solutions will dissolve the calcium in teeth over a period of time and will also interfere with calcium metabolism. This is especially of concern to post-menopausal women, who are already have a tendency towards osteoporosis.

Stimulants and sugar are habit forming, and Coca Cola contains large quantities of both. It is now sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. Fructose is a simple carbohydrate.

Carbohydrates are divided into two broad categories:

simple carbohydrates,

e.g. glucose,

fructose (fruit sugar),

lactose (milk sugar),

sucrose (table sugar) etc.

complex carbohydrates,

e.g. starch

cellulose

High fructose corn syrup is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose and then processing the glucose to produce a high proportion (80%) of fructose. This is not natural fructose, as found in fruit, since fruit usually contains 50% fructose, 50% glucose and is absorbed into the blood stream slowly, because the fruit also contains high levels of fibre. The fructose in high fructose corn syrup is absorbed into the body rapidly and transformed into glucose by the liver. There is currently some concern surrounding the consumption of high levels of fructose because it seems to interfere with copper metabolism and with the formation of collagen and elastin, essential components of the growing body.

When we eat (or drink) a high dose of sugar (sucrose, glucose or fructose) our blood glucose level rises suddenly, producing a feeling of elation. However high blood glucose levels also stimulate the pancreas to release insulin, which causes the glucose to be removed from the blood stream and converted into fat. This results in low blood sugar, low energy, irritability and low mood. At this point, we crave the feeling of elation associated with the sugar. This is why soft drinks are habit forming.

When, on the other hand, we eat complex carbohydrates, such as potatoes, bread, pasta, rice etc., the body breaks down these complex molecules gradually, over a period of several hours, into molecules of glucose. This glucose is released into the blood stream gradually, thus maintaining blood glucose at the level required by the body and brain for proper functioning.

Putting high quantities of sugar into drinks is an insidious way of introducing calories into people. People eating a chocolate bar are aware that they are consuming something fattening. People, especially children, consuming the same amount of calories in a drink are not. Regular consumption of drinks containing high levels of sugar lead to a gradual build up of stored fat and contribute to the rising levels of obesity in the West. Over-consumption of sugar causes over-stimulation of the pancreas. Over a period of many years, the pancreas loses its ability to produce adequate quantities of insulin. This leads to late-onset diabetes. Levels of late-onset diabetes have been rising steadily in the West over the past century.

Coca Cola, one of the world’s largest corporations, worth about ninety five billion dollars, owes much of its success to the massive marketing and advertising used to promote the product. It became a corporation early in the twentieth century and immediately began an aggressive advertising campaign throughout the US. The corporation used some advertising techniques of dubious morality, including funding the American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry and suppressing a World Health Organisation Report on healthy eating. The report stated that soft drink consumption contributed to obesity. But possibly the policy which caused the most public outrage was that of paying schools to sell Coca Cola in vending machines. The corporation realised that if they could sell Coca Cola to children, by the time they finished school they would become confirmed Coca Cola drinkers and would continue to buy the drink for the rest of their lives. This strategy was so successful that Coca Cola rapidly became the most popular drink in the US.

Long before the US market had become saturated, the corporation decided to target the next place with money to spend on drinks, i.e. Europe, where they now sell thirty percent of their product. Vending machines in schools soon became common place, despite opposition from concerned parents and teachers. Under-funded state schools found it difficult to refuse the money offered by Coca Cola.

The imposition of permanent advertising in schools, in the form of vending machines, certainly justifies a boycott, and indeed some schools have organised them, in protest against the Corporation’s monopoly of products sold in school vending machines. Groups at Universities in the US and the UK are also running boycotts in protest against Coke’s human rights abuses. Berkeley, New York University, Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, Macalister and University College Dublin all have ongoing boycotts.

Coca Cola has a history of human rights abuse. “It is a fact that the soft drinks giant from Atlanta, Georgia collaborated with the Nazi-regime throughout its reign from 1933 – 1945 and sold countless millions of bottled beverages to Hitler’s Germany.” From Coca-Cola Goes to War, Jones E and Ritzman F.

While the corporation, back in the USA, was promoting Coca Cola as a morale booster for the US troops, their German representative, Max Keith was sponsoring Nazi events, including the 1936 Olympics and situating advertisements close to Nazi leaders at rallies. Sales of Coke in Germany went from zero in 1929 to 4 million cases in 1939. Coke became the most popular drink in Germany and in 1944 the company sold 2 million cases. When the Nazis began their invasions of Italy, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway Walter Oppenhof, Coca Cola’s German company lawyer, and Max Keith were employed by the Nazis’ Office of Enemy Property. They travelled with Nazi troops and were responsible for setting up Nazi Coca-Cola factories in expropriated soft drinks plants in countries occupied by the Nazis. They staffed these factories with kidnapped civilians. (See: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/AM483_95/projects/coke/coke.html ).

But Coca Cola’s association with fascist regimes is not confined to world war history.

In the 1970s workers at Coca Cola bottling factories in Guatemala were killed, in the 1980s Coke supported the Apartheid system in South Africa and in the 1990s they supported the brutal Abacha regime in Nigeria.

Currently SINAL TRAINAL, the Colombian workers’ union is promoting a world wide boycott in order to raise awareness of the intimidation, torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and murder of workers in the Coca Cola bottling plants in Colombia.

On the other side of the world, in several South Indian states, including Kerala and Tamil Nadu, boycotts have been running for years, despite police repression, in protest against Coca Cola’s excessive water consumption, pollution of local wells and destruction of agriculture. The Corporation’s bottling factories have been pumping water from boreholes at such a rate that they have dried up the underground aquifers. They have also been distributing the sludge produced by the factory as fertilizer. It is true that this sludge does contain substances which fertilize the soil, but Exeter University analysed it for the Kerala Pollution Control Board and found that it contained dangerously high levels of toxic metals, including cadmium. These toxic metals leach into the ground water and are taken up by crops and therefore ingested by the local population. After the BBC aired a programme about this, Coca Cola was forced to stop dumping their toxic waste on the local population, but nothing was done to clean up the already polluted environment. The protest and boycott in India continue.

The Coca Cola Corporation owns four of the world’s most popular five soft drinks: Coca Cola, diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite.

Over the past five years, Coca Cola Corporation has realised that, as water resources dwindle worldwide, even more money can be made from selling bottled water. Their sales of water are growing exponentially. Brands include Bonaqua, Dasani (US) Kinley (India), Mount Franklin (Australia) Malvern (UK) and Ciel (Mexico), but soft drinks still account for 85% of their market (at the moment). They plan to expand massively in the bottled water market but most of their advertising will go into promotion of soft drinks. Soon Coca Cola, Pepsi and Nestle will be the three main corporations selling bottled water, an iniquitous market, often depriving people of their local source of spring water, and selling it back to them at unaffordable prices.

Max Keiser, investment activist, and Zak Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, have formed a partnership to target Coca Cola by bringing down the value of its shares. Keiser has developed a system for measuring a corporation’s vulnerability to a boycott. He calls it the Karmabanque (KbQ) Index. The KbQ index 2004 tracks the share price of high-performing but socially and environmentally irresponsible corporations, assuming their shares had been sold short on the 1 January 2004. A short sale is a bet that a trader makes that a company’s share price will fall. The further the company’s share price falls, the more money the trader makes. Selling short stocks hurts corporations because it deflates their share price. The KbQ rating determines where a company appears in the index, and combines the amount of dissent directed at a company and its boycott vulnerability ratio (BVR). A company’s BVR indicates how susceptible its stock price is to a consumer boycott. In order to work out a corporation’s vulnerability, its market capitalization should be divided by trailing annual sales. Currently, ExxonMobil’s BVR is close to $1, whereas Coca-Cola’s is closer to $5. In other words the Coca Cola Corporation is five times more vulnerable to a boycott than ExxonMobil.

Coca Cola’s appalling human rights record, combined with its high boycott vulnerability ratio make it the ideal target for a boycott. This is why Max Keiser and Zak Goldsmith have decided to launch a hedge fund, which will be used to buy Coca Cola shares. They will then sell the shares for less than they bought them for, which will bring down their value on the international stock market. They are relying on the continuing boycott of Coca Cola products to bring the share price down still further. They will then buy the shares at a lower price than they sold them for and sell them again for even less. All profits from this venture will be donated to the victims of Coca Cola in countries such as India and Colombia.

Max Keiser and Zak Goldsmith say that for every 1,000 new boycotters, they will increase the size of the hedge fund by £5000. Goldsmith’s Ecologist Magazine will publicize the boycott and audit, track and publish the results. Keiser recommends that pressure groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth should decide what to boycott according to their Boycott Vulnerability Ratio.

There has been a history of Coca Cola boycotts in many parts of the world. But this is the first time that an investor has become actively involved in a world wide Coca Cola boycott. Max Keiser and Zak Goldsmith deserve our support. There is every reason to hope that they will succeed in bringing down the market value of Coca Cola, but for that they need more people and organisations to join the boycott.

Everytime someone wants to propose a new major aid initiative, it seems throwing around the term “Marshall Plan” is necessary.  Gordon Brown applied the term quite a bit several years ago in arguing for a big aid push to Africa from the G8.  Thabo Mbeki somewhat nonsensically used the term when he called for Africa to develop independenty.

Most of the time, references to the post-WWII reconstruction of Western Europe simply mean somebody wants the rich world to take out its checkbook. 

But I was intrigued reading a recent proposal by Glenn Hubbard in Foreign Policy.  He focused on the actual mechanics of the Marshall Plan: it provided loans to businesses which then repaid the loans to their home governments which then spent the funds on infrastructure improvements. 

He makes a number of good points.  Microfinance is enough to bring about dramatic transformations in individual lives, but it is not sufficient to jumpstart an economy.  His infrastructure-following-business proposal is also astute: one of the reasons aid-financed infrastructure improvements have been neglected and ineffective is the lack of communication with the people who they are intended to aid. 

And I have to admit, his overall idea, which he provided a little more detail on when he argued for this plan a year ago, is worth a good think. Set up a committee to dispurse aid; make potential recipients adopt business-friendly policies; disperse aid to businesses, upstarts, or “business infrastructure” like training centers; have the direct recipients repay their governments, which will in turn spend it on vital infrastructure, planning projects closely with business leaders.

But there are a couple problems.  The first is that his blistering critique of aid comes a little late.  Yes, for decades aid from the West to the Rest has been ineffective.   Now, though, things have begun to change.  Aid dispersal has undergone reform in many major donor countries, including, to some extent, the U.S.  The MCC already forces recipients to demonstrate progress on five or so indicators directly related to a pro-business environment (trade reform, ease of starting a business, land rights, trade policy, others here.)   Basically, Hubbard makes the same mistake lots of conservative-minded aid critics make (and which I’ve written on this blog about before): he lumps all aid together and fails to admit the possibility of reform. 

The other major problem is the optimistic and naive assumption that governments will change policies when offered funds that will completely bypass their control.  The European recipient governments of Marshall Plan funds –as Hubbard admits– understood the importance of ground-up, business-led growth.  But the poorest countries in Africa don’t necessarily have that valuable experience.  Plus, they have become used to directing massive aid funds.  It’s hard enough, as an outsider with a legacy of poor conditionality associated with aid, to inspire reform in recipient governments.  Forcing them to make politically difficult changes while betting on an untested business community to pay them back is quite a big risk.

But like I said, his argument is not one to be tossed out.  My initial take is that something like the MCC, which offers big aid packages to governments, should be combined with a business-investment program.  That way, a country will still have a strong carrot: immediate, direct budget support aid.  But the potential for wholescale economic change that Hubbard forsees has a fighting chance.

Global Research, July 28, 2009

This essay is Part 2 of “Global Power and Global Government.” Part 1, “The Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System” can be viewed here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14464

Russia, Oil and Revolution

By the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire had a virtual monopoly over the United States, and even many foreign countries. In 1890, the King of Holland gave his blessing for the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company, which was mainly founded to refine and sell kerosene from Indonesia, a Dutch colony. Also in 1890, a British company was founded with the intended purpose of shipping oil, the Shell Transport and Trading Company, and it “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and eventually, “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”[1]

Russia entered into the Industrial Revolution later than any other large country and empire of its time. By the 1870s, “Russia’s oil fields, including those in Baku, were challenging Standard Oil’s supremacy in Europe. Russia’s ascendancy in natural resources disrupted the strategic balance of power in Europe and troubled Britain.” Britain thus attempted to begin oil explorations in the Middle East, specifically in Persia (Iran), first through Baron Julius de Reuter, the founder of Reuters News Service, who gained exploration rights from the Shah of Iran.[2] Reuter’s attempt at uncovering vast quantities of oil failed, and a man named William Knox D’Arcy took the lead in Persia.

By the middle of the 19th century, “the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world, perhaps in all of history. Their five international banking houses comprised one of the first multinational corporations.” Alfonse de Rothschild was “heavily invested in Russian oil at least forty years before William Knox D’Arcy began tying up Persian oil concessions for the British. Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly Standard Oil, was the Baron [Rothschild]’s pet project.” In the early 1880s, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region.[3]

By the mid-1880s, “the Rothschilds were poised to become the chief oil supplier, not only to Europe but to the Far East,” however, “the Baku-Batum railroad was already proving inadequate to transport the volume of oil being produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal, which shortened the journey to the Far East by four thousand miles. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez.”[4] When the Egyptian government was bankrupt in 1874, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli turned to his close friends, the Rothschilds, “for the colossal cash advance necessary” to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company.[5] By this time, the Rothschilds were already principle shareholders in the Bank of France,[6] and the Bank of England, sitting alongside other notable shareholders such as Baring Brothers, Morgan Grenfell and Lazard Brothers.[7]

The Rothschilds “had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.”[8] When the Czar died, he was succeeded by his son, Czar Nicholas II, who instituted anti-Semitic pogroms, discriminating against Jews, which had the effect of stimulating a massive emigration of Jews out of Russia and Eastern Europe and into Western Europe. However, these East European and Russian Jewish émigrés grew up in a newly industrializing nation in which the tyranny of the government and collusion between it and powerful financial and industrial interests left the great majority of people dispossessed and incited more socialist tendencies in thought and action.

The English Rothschilds were very alarmed “when the socialist tendencies of the émigrés contributed to a massively disruptive tailors’ strike in the East End of London in 1888. A young Georgian communist who would become known to the world as Joseph Stalin was already organizing laborers to strike at the Rothschild oil interests in Batum.” The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain, as they were intensely anti-Czarist and progressively socialist, and the Rothschilds were known for their heavy collaboration with the Czarist regimes of Russia. One potential solution considered to the problem of increased socialist-leaning Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish émigrés to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.[9]

On top of this, as the pre-eminent Zionist in Britain, his proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, in that several years prior, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, and it was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests.

The Rothschilds, despite their overtly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rhetoric, did not stop their support of the Russian regime and economic activities within anti-Semitic Russia. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, “had gone so far as to co-sign an agreement with rival producers – including America’s Standard Oil [of Rockefeller interests] – to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Russian government.” In 1902, the Rothschilds “entered into a partnership with Royal Dutch and Shell (soon to become a single global company) to form the Asiatic Petroleum Company for exploiting the fields of Southern Russia.”[10]

In the early 1900s, the Rothchilds were the primary oil interests in Russia, second in the world only to the Rockefellers. As industrialization was under way, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people. This spurred protests and riots, and a “young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general, [and] the Rothschilds in particular. Mass action by oil workers in Baku [the major oil fields in Russia] in 1903 was the spark that set off the first general strike across the Russian landmass.” Then with the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, and further protests, came the Revolution of 1905. In the following years, the Rothschilds sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, gaining significant shares in the international oil company.[11]

The specter of political and social instability within Russia was high and did not go without notice from international banking, oil, and industrial interests. Naturally, the international banking houses were keeping a close eye on developments within Russia. The Rothschilds had to lessen their overt involvement with Russia, as they could not maintain such a relationship with the most anti-Jewish nation in the world at the time, while also claiming to be the primary advocates of Jewish aspirations for a homeland. This is why they sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, but then gained significant shares in the company itself. So while publicly cutting their ties with Russia, they still held massive interests in its industrial capacity. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the Rothschilds “refused to participate in underwriting a major loan, this at a time when Russia desperately needed funds to stabilize the regime.”[12]

So, in 1906, John D. Rockefeller stepped in to aid Czarist Russia, and offered $200,000,000, or “400,000,000 rubles for a concession for railroads from Tashkend to Tomsk and from Tehita to Polamoshna and a grant of land on both sides of the prospective lines.”[13] These international financiers were still clearly intent upon maintaining their interests within Russia.

However, the Russian governments refusal to allow the deal between the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and other major oil monopolies to divide up the world’s oil reserves, may well have spurred discontent among these powerful interests. If Russia refused to allow them to control all the oil and have a right to all oil, did this mean that Russia was planning on building a domestic oil industry? If this were the case, it could pose a threat to all the entrenched economic and financial interests, particularly those of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, as Russia’s significant oil reserves and resources would allow it to possibly even surpass the United States in industrialization. Further, Czarist Russia became an increasingly unstable investment environment, controlled by an increasingly unpredictable monarchy.

The 1917 October Revolution “inspired workers’ uprisings in the oil fields against low wages and harsh working conditions. In 1919, Azerbaijan took advantage of the political unrest to declare sovereignty over the Baku fields. That same year SONJ [Standard Oil of New Jersey] made an agreement with the Azerbaijani government to purchase undeveloped land for exploration in the Baku region. Amidst the chaos, foreign oil companies rushed into Russia hoping to collect concessions at reduced rates. The Nobel brothers sold much of their operations to SONJ (today ExxonMobil) to build an alliance in 1920.”[14]

Antony C. Sutton, economist, historian and author, as well as research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, that both fascist and communist systems are “based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists,” and that, “the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.”[15] Thus, the major money powers of the west decided to put their money behind the creation of a totalitarian communist state in Russia, in order to create a captive economy, which they could exploit and remove from competititon.

When the Revolution began, Trotsky was in New York, and was immediately granted an American passport by President Wilson, and then given a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa, in order to return to Russia and “carry forward” the revolution.[16] Trotsky, while traveling, was arrested in Canada, but was released as a result of British intervention.[17]

Trotsky traveled on board a ship in 1917, leaving New York, along with an interesting cast of fellow passengers, including “other Trotskyite revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, American Communists, and a man named Charles Crane. Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee, whose son, Richard Crane, was an assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, played a significant part in what occurred in Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, said that Crane, “did much to bring on the [Alexander] Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” Kerensky was the second Prime Minister in the Russian Provisional Government, which followed the collapse of the Czarist government, and preceded the Bolshevik. Crane also thought that the Kerensky government “is the revolution in its first phase only.”[18]

The Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, which broke out in 1914, and had all the major European powers at war. Morgan and Rockefeller interests, organized in Wall Street and centralized in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, used “the Red Cross Mission as its operational vehicle” in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Red Cross Mission in Russia got its endowment from wealthy people such as J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, Cleveland H. Dodge, and Mrs. Russell Sage, and “in World War I the Red Cross depended heavily on Wall Street, and specifically the Morgan firm.” When the American Red Cross set up a mission to Russia, “William Boyce Thompson, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, had ‘offered to pay the entire expense of the commission’.”[19] All expenses were paid for by William Boyce Thompson, who was a major stockholder in Chase National Bank, whose President had Thompson appointed head of the New York Fed.[20]

The Mission was primarily made up of lawyers, financiers, their assistants, people affiliated with Standard Oil and the Rockefeller’s National City Bank.[21] The Mission supported through a loan, the Provisional government of Alexander Kerensky, yet, William B. Thompson of the New York Fed “made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.” Interestingly, when the Bolsheviks took control, “The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree – the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.”[22] Ultimately, the Red Cross mission in Russia “was in fact a mission of Wall Street financiers to influence and pave the way for control, through either Kerensky or the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of the Russian market and resources.”[23]

The American International Corporation (AIC), was “created in 1915 to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.” It was created and controlled by Morgan, Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and its directors were affiliated with National City Bank (Rockefeller), the Carnegie Foundation, General Electric, the DuPont family, New York Life Insurance, American Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Members of its board financially supported the Bolsheviks and urged the US State Department to recognize the Bolshevik government.[24]

In 1920, Russian gold was being siphoned through Sweden, where it was melted down and stamped with the Swedish mint, funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Guaranty Trust Company (Morgan), two of the primary banking interests behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. [25] During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.[26]

As Antony Sutton wrote, “Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy,” and that, “The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.”[27]

Eventually, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious, and Wall Street won. Under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the early 1930s, Soviet industrialization “required Western technology and expertise,” and in a “frequently overlooked contribution” that came “from abroad,” American firms aided in the industrialization of the USSR, including Ford, General Electric and DuPont,[28] with Standard Oil, General Electric, Austin Co., General Motors, International Harvester, and Caterpillar Tractor trading heavily with the Soviet Union.[29]

Standard Oil bought “gargantuan quantities of Red Oil,” General Electric received a $100,000,000 contract from the Soviet Union to build “the four largest hydroelectric generators in the world,” Austin Co., got a $50,000,000 contract to erect the City of Austingrad, “complete with tractor and automobile factories involving an additional $30,000,000 contract for parts and technical assistance with Ford Motor Corp.” On top of this, “Other [Soviet] business friends are General Motors, DuPont de Nemours, International Harvester, John Deere Co., Caterpillar Tractor, Radio Corp. and the U. S. Shipping Board, which sold the Reds a fleet of 25 cargo steamers.” Banks with close ties to the Russian economy included Chase National, National City Bank and Equitable Trust, all of which are either Rockefeller or Morgan interests.[30]

World War Restructures World Order

In the midst of World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.” The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.[31]

“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US, and “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.” On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.[32] They were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”[33]

The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”[34] There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.[35]

World War I had marked a monumental period in history in what can be understood as “transitional imperialism.” What I mean by this is that historically, periods of imperial decline and transition (that is, the rise or fall of an empire or empires), are often marked by increased international violence and war.

World War I was the result of the culmination of imperial ambitions by various powers. This was the natural result of the wave of “New Imperialism” that swept the industrialized world in the 1870s. In 1879, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary created the Dual Alliance to combat growing Russian influence in the Balkans with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Italy joined in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance. In 1892, the Franco-Russia Alliance was made, which was a military alliance between France and the Russian Empire to counteract the German Empire’s supremacy over Europe. In 1904, the Entente Cordiale, a series of agreements between France and Britain, was agreed upon in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. In 1907, the Anglo-Russia Entente was formed in an effort to end their long-running Great Game by setting the boundaries of their imperial control over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet. It also acted as a balance to the growing German Empire’s might and influence in Europe. After the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Triple Entente was cemented between Britain, Russia and France as a significant counter to the Triple Alliance.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire had been a long and slow process. The Ottoman Empire dated back to 1299, and lasted until 1923. “From 1517 until the end of World War I, a period of 400 years, the Ottoman Empire was the ruling power in the central Middle East. Ottoman administrative institutions and practices shaped the peoples of the modern Middle East and left a legacy that endured after the empire’s disappearance.”[36]

In the late 16th century, “Ottoman raw materials, normally channeled into internal consumption and industry, were increasingly exchanged for European manufactured products. This trade benefited Ottoman merchants but led to a decline in state revenues and a shortage of raw materials for domestic consumption. As the costs of scarce materials rose, the empire suffered from inflation, and the state was unable to procure sufficient revenues to meet its expenses. Without these revenues, the institutions that supported the Ottoman system, especially the armed forces, were undermined.” This was largely done through commercial treaties known as Capitulations. The first Capitulation “was negotiated with France in 1536; it allowed French merchants to trade freely in Ottoman ports, to be exempt from Ottoman taxes, and to import and export goods at low tariff rates. In addition, the treaty granted extraterritorial privileges to French merchants by permitting them to come under the legal jurisdiction of the French consul in Istanbul, thus making them subject to French rather than Ottoman-Islamic law. This first treaty was the model for subsequent agreements signed with other European states.”[37]

The Ottoman state had been sufficiently weakened by the early 20th century, which happened to be the same time period that Europeans, particularly the British, were looking at Middle East oil to fuel their empires. The major European alliances sought to take advantage of this weakened Ottoman position. In 1909, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inciting the anger of the Russia Empire. The First Balkan War was fought between 1912 and 1913, in which Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria fought the Ottoman Empire. The settlement that followed angered Bulgaria, which then began to engage in territorial disputes with Serbia and Romania. Bulgaria then attacked Greece and Serbia in 1913, followed by Romania and the Ottoman Empire declaring war against Bulgaria, which was the Second Balkan War.

This further destabilized the region, and Austria-Hungary grew wary of the growing influence of Serbia. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, where the assassin was from, and then declared war. The Russian Empire mobilized for war the next day, with German mobilization following behind, and France behind it. Germany then declared war on Russia, and World War I was under way.

The end of the Great War saw the disillusion of the Ottoman Empire, breaking up its territory, which was carved up between France and Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. The German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires also officially ended as a result of the war, for which Germany was given the sole blame for the war and punished through the Versailles reparations. The Russian Empire ended with the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in Russia pulling out of the war in 1917, the same year the United States entered the war. The Great War turned the United States into a powerful nation in the world, becoming a leading creditor nation with significant international influence. The British and French maintained their empires, though they were in decline. However, they attempted to maintain significant control over the Middle East.

World War I was thus the culmination of a massive build-up of imperial nations seeking expanded influence and markets for their capital. Entering the War, there were many empires, leaving it, there were two dominant European Empires (France and Britain) and an emerging new force in the world, the United States.

The Great Depression

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . . . Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.[38]

- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927

Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who worked closely together throughout the 1920s, decided to “use the financial power of Britain and the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.” These men were not working for the governments and nations of whom they purportedly represented, but “were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”[39]

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a stock market boom, which was a result of the commercial banks providing “funds for the purchase of stock and took the latter as collateral,” creating a massive wave of underwriting and purchasing of securities. The stock market speculation that followed was the result of the banks “borrowing substantially from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Federal Reserve System was helping to finance the great stock market boom.”[40]

In 1927, a meeting took place in New York City between Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, the German central bank of the Weimar Republic; Charles Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France and Benjamin Strong of the New York Fed. The topic of the meeting was the “persistently weak reserve position of the Bank of England. This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve System would ease interest rates to encourage lending. Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.” The Fed obliged.[41]

The Bank of England had a weak reserve position because of Britain’s position as champion of the gold standard. Foreign central banks, including the Bank of France, were transferring their exchange holdings into gold, of which the Bank of England did not have enough to supply.  So the Fed lowered its discount rate, and began buying securities to equal French gold purchases. Money in the US, then, “was going increasingly into stock-market speculation rather than into production of real wealth.”[42]

In early 1929, the Federal Reserve board of governors “called upon the member banks to reduce their loans on stock-exchange collateral,” and took other actions with the publicly pronounced aim of reducing “the amount of credit available for speculation.” Yet, it had the reverse effect, as “the available credit went more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.” On September 26, 1929, London was hit with a financial panic, and the Bank of England raised its bank rate, causing British money to leave Wall Street, “and the over inflated market commenced to sag,” leading to a panic by mid-October.[43]

The longest-serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote that the Fed triggered the speculative boom through its pumping excess credit into the economy (sound familiar?), and eventually this resulted in the American and British economies collapsing due to the massive imbalances produced. Britain then “abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.”[44]

The Bank for International Settlements

In 1929, the Young Committee was formed to create a program for the settlement of German reparations payments that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty, written at the Paris Peace talks in 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, founder of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), as a subsidiary of General Electric. He was also President and CEO of GE from 1922 until 1939, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1928, and was also, in 1929, deputy chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. When Young was sent to Europe in 1929 to form the program for German reparations payments he was accompanied by J.P Morgan, Jr.[45]

What emerged from the Committee was the creation of the Young Plan, which “was assertedly a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge German real assets for a gigantic mortgage held in the United States.” Further, the Young Plan “increased unemployment more and more,” allowing Hitler to say he would “do away with unemployment,” which, “really was the reason of the enormous success Hitler had in the election.”[46]

The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[47]

The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.”[48] As Carroll Quigley explained:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able  to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[49]

The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”[50]

In a letter dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt told Edward M. House, “The real truth .. is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson – and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W[oodrow]. W[ilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States – only on a far bigger and broader basis.”[51]

Banking on Hitler

Throughout the 1930s, with the loans provided through the Dawes and Young Plans, Germany was able to create a few dominant industrial cartels, which were all financed by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.[52] These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”[53] Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.”[54] On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.[55]

Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank throughout Weimar Germany, stayed on as President of the German central bank from 1933 until 1939, and was thus a central figure in Nazi Germany, being a major driver being the German plans for reindustrialization, redevelopment and rearmament. Hitler, in 1934, made Schacht his Minister of Economics.

Central banks across Europe began to purchase Nazi gold, which was smuggled and melted down and re-stamped in Switzerland, (much like was done with Soviet gold). Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States all “traded with the Nazis with gold transferred by the BIS.” This was done as a collaborative effort among central banks, as “the BIS did enter into gold and currency transactions with Nazi Germany through its participation with the Reichsbank.” Schacht wielded his significant influence and “had become instrumental in placing high-ranking Nazi officials and foreign collaborators on the BIS Board of Directors.”[56]

Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon

World War Two also marked a period of massive imperial transition. The build-up of the Third Reich led to Nazi imperialism throughout Europe and North Africa and the Japanese Empire expanded into China. At the end of the War, the British and French Empires were all but vanished, holding onto remaining colonies in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union was devastated and Germany, with much of Europe, was in ruins. What emerged from this war that was most significant was the rise of a new empire, the American Empire. America’s intervention into the war and expansion into Europe as a liberating force allowed it to set up bases throughout Europe as well as in Japan on the Pacific. The Soviet Union, having taken Europe from the East, expanded its influence and dominance across Eastern Europe. Following Churchill’s speech that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe, the Cold War was underway. Thus, World War II ended the age of many European empires, even of those in decline, and created a bi-polar world, which was divided between the USSR and the USA.

Following World War II, the US, as the only major nation in the world whose industrial base survived the devastation of the war, assumed the position of global hegemon. It began to set up the infrastructure, both national and international, to assume the position of global superpower, exerting its hegemony across the globe. The crown had been passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. Ultimately, both were and are owned and controlled by the same interests, primarily represented through the central banks and the private banking interests that make up the dominant shareholders.

Before America had even entered the war in late 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the round table groups Carroll Quigley discussed as having originated from the secret society of Cecil Rhodes, was planning on America entering the war. The CFR had essentially captured US foreign policy firmly in the grips of the banking elite. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913) ensured that the United States would become indebted to and owned by international banking interests, and thus, act in their interest. The Fed financed the US role in World War I, provided the credit for speculation, which led to the Great Depression, and massive consolidation for the interests that own the Federal Reserve System. It then financed US entry into World War II.

The CFR, established six years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. It was to alter America’s conceptualization of its place within the world – from isolationist industrial nation to an engine of empire working for international banking and corporate American interests. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire – encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view. By altering one’s ideology to that of promoting such an internationalist agenda, the big money that was behind it would ensure one’s rise through government, industry, academia and media. The other major think tanks and policy institutions in the United States are also represented at the CFR. They are constitutive of divisions within the elite, however, such divisions are predicated on the basis of how to use American imperial power, where to use it, on what basis to justify it, and other various methodological differences. The divide amongst elites was never on the questions of: should we use American imperial power, why has America become an Empire, or should there even be an empire? If one takes such considerations to heart and questions these concepts, be it within the foreign policy establishment, intelligence, military, academia, finance, corporate world, or media; chances are, such a person is not a member of the CFR.

The CFR effectively undertook a policy coup d’état over American foreign policy with the Second World War. When war broke out, the Council began a “strictly confidential” project called the War and Peace Studies, in which top CFR members collaborated with the US State Department in determining US policy, and the project was entirely financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.[57] The post-War world was already being designed by members of the Council, who would go into government in order to enact these designs.

The policy of “containment” towards the Soviet Union that would define American foreign policy for nearly half a century was envisaged in a 1947 edition of Foreign Affairs, the academic journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. So too were the ideological foundations for the Marshall Plan and NATO envisaged at the Council on Foreign Relations, with members of the Council recruited to enact, implement and lead these institutions.[58] The Council also played a role in the establishment and promotion of the United Nations,[59] which was subsequently built on land bought from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.[60]

The Rise of the American Empire and Keynesian Political Economy

Within liberal political economy, a prominent individual and British economist, John Maynard Keynes, undertook the process of evolving liberal theory into what later became known as Keynesian economics. Following in the footsteps of the dominance of the liberal order, in which the economic and political realms were viewed as separate, and necessarily so, Keynes sought to re-imagine the political-economic relationship. His work was largely influenced by the events leading up to and following the Great Depression, which was largely seen as a failure of the liberal economic order. Keynes wanted to combine state and market forces, not rejecting the liberal notion of the “invisible hand,” however, relegated that to a more distinct area, and imagined a broader role for the state in the economy.

Keynes advocated for the state to act, or invest, when private individuals would not, in an effort to stave off financial or economic crises. Thus, Keynes would argue, the state strengthens the market. A Marxist theorist would likely point to this as an example of how the state, within a capitalist society, functions as an institutional organ which protects the interests of the capitalist class. Keynes advocated a liberal international order composed of free markets, however he recommended state intervention domestically, particularly to protect jobs and control inflation.

Keynesian political economic theory served in large part as a basis for the creation of the Bretton-Woods System, established in 1944, and his concept of embedded liberalism (promotion of liberal international economy, and state intervention in domestic economy), reigned supreme until the 1970s.

In 1944, representatives of the 44 Allied nations met for the Bretton Woods conference (the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) in New Hampshire, in an effort to reorganize and regulate the international financial and monetary order following the war. The UK was represented by John Maynard Keynes; with the American contingent represented by Harry Dexter White, an American economist and senior US Treasury department official.  It was out of this conference that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), now part of the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO), originated. They were designed to be the institutionalized economic foundations of exerting American hegemony across the globe; they were, in essence, engines of economic empire.

In 1947, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which created the position of Secretary of Defense overseeing the entire military establishment, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as well as created the CIA modeled on its war time incarnation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS); and the Act also created the National Security Council, headed by a National Security Adviser, and designed to give the President further advice on foreign affairs issues separate from the State Department. Essentially, the Act created the basis for the national security state apparatus for empire building.

The founding of the CIA was urged by the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1940s, and the architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions; were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Deputy Directors of the CIA for the first two decades were all “from the same New York legal and financial circles.”[61]

just goes to show that nothing changes, he's loonier than the last guy

During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:

And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?

Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop’s question, in the midst of which came the eloquent line quoted in the example above:

 The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It’s why we participate in all of these great international organizations. There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power — and here I think you’re referring to military power — then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can’t deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don’t think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

(Applause.)

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp

Subject: Fw: Teacher letter to Obama

The following paragraph prefaced the “Teacher letter to Obama”:

“This is one very angry teacher—her letter is awesome. How many millions of Americans across this country think exactly what she thinks and has said in this e-mail? What scares me is that every day something surfaces that has been signed as a Presidential Order or suddenly just appears as law. Who does this stuff while we’re all sleeping at night? Those printing presses in DC must run night and day. These first (heaven help us) 100 days have been the most destructive period of time in our nation’s history, and we don’t even know the half of it.”

A Disclaimer from thekingoftexas.wordpress.com:

This complete text of the teacher’s letter follows, much as I received it in a friend’s e-mail. I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the problems the teacher’s writing accumulated from being passed around the Internet—items such as missing punctuation, incomplete sentences, broken paragraphs, etc. However, I added none of my thoughts, nor did I change any thoughts expressed by the author, nor did I express agreement or disagreement with the author’s opinions—I merely expressed admiration of her eloquence.

The letter is apparently real—a search on http://refdesk.whitepages.com shows that the purported author of the letter, Ms Kathleen Lyday, is a real person—a real school teacher, one who lives in Missouri and works at a real elementary school. Whether she actually wrote the letter and whether she actually sent the letter to the president is unknown—I would like to believe that she did write it and sent it, and that the president responded to it. However, whether the letter was written and sent by her, and whether it was received and answered are all moot points—the Internet has given it some tremendous exposure. My purpose in posting it to WordPress is to perhaps broaden that exposure even more.

Kudos to Kathleen for expressing her concerns so eloquently.

Subject: Fw: Teacher letter to Obama

April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America, collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the president of the United States. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States—you are not responsible to the people of any other country on earth.

I resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States, telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about, if not the consideration of the people of Europe?

Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century? Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country are from that heritage, and were governing us until you came along. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our president should not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don’t show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia.

How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans, but you make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offend our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.

What’s the matter with you? I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle. You should be ashamed of yourselves—all of you.

You are self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers, yet you do nothing about the real thieves in this situation. What about Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses and the Freddie Mac bonuses? What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members, and the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17 percent bonus. I took a 5 percent cut in pay to save my job with my employer. You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized it? I surely didn’t.

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an 18-month period—that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million. Who authorized that, and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at the group that is largely responsible for the economic mess we are in now?

I resent that you consider me and my fellow citizens brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.

I also want you to know that I find just about everything you do and everything you say offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

Sincerely,

Name, address and workplace deleted

A visitor to this posting (see comment below) said that the teacher did not write the letter. A quick check of http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ihavehadit.asp confirms that it was written by someone else.

The following excerpt is taken from Snopes.com:

Origins: This letter to President Obama began circulating in May 2009 as something penned by a fourth grade teacher from Hillsboro, Missouri, named Kathleen Lyday. However, Ms. Lyday has disclaimed being its author; her name merely became attached to it when she forwarded it to others. An earlier version circulated in mid-April 2009 credits authorship to one Franklin T. Bell of Columbia, Maryland.

Regardless of the author, it’s a good letter and I’ll stay with this posting.

We warned you.

There were early signs of a little crush for small rational flats of the 1950s-60s. So we did it. Our serious and responsible Altbau flat has now a little sister, a 1958 Marshall plan flat, just nearby, in leafy Schöneberg. The little cub is playful and cuddly…