Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty

George Washington's picture

Preface: Liberals might assume that it is Republicans who are cheerleaders for global corporations at the expense of government.  But, as shown below, liberal politicians have been just as bad … or worse.

Matt Stoller – who writes for Salon and has contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters – knows his way around Washington.

Stoller – a prominent liberal – has scoured the Congressional Record to unearth hidden historical facts.  For example, Stoller has previously shown that the U.S. government push for a “New World Order” is no wacky conspiracy theory, but extensively documented in the Congressional Record.

Now, Stoller uses the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always about weakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:

Political officials (liberal ones, actually) engaged in an actual campaign to get rid of countries with their pesky parochial interests, and have the whole world managed by global corporations. Yup, this actually was explicit in the 1960s, as opposed to today’s passive aggressive arguments which amount to the same thing.




Liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State and an architect of 1960s American trade policies George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. But the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. I’ve spoken with Froman about this history, and Froman himself does not seem to know much about it. But he is captive of these ideas, nonetheless, as is much of the elite class. They do not know the original ideology behind what is now just bureaucratic true believer-ism, they just know that free trade is good and right and true.


But back to the 1967 hearing. In the opening statement, before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations. [Background.]

Here’s just some of that statement. It really is worth reading, I’ve bolded the surprising parts.

“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.


But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.


To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.


Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….


We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.” ***

These ["free trade"] agreements are not and never have been about trade. You simply cannot disentangle colonialism, the American effort to create the European Union, and American trade efforts. After their opening statements, Ball and Rockefeller go on on to talk about how European states need to be wedged into a common monetary union with our trade efforts and that Latin America needs to be managed into prosperity by the US and Africa by Europe. Through such efforts, they thought that the US could put together a global economy over the next thirty years. Thirty years later was 1997, which was exactly when NAFTA was being implemented and China was nearing its entry into the WTO. Impeccable predictions, gents.




I guess it turns out that the conspiracy theorists who believe in UN-controlled black helicopters aren’t as wrong as you might think about trade policy, and not just because United Technologies, which actually makes black helicopters, has endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership.




These agreements are about getting rid of national sovereignty, and the people who first pressed for NAFTA were explicit about it. They really did want a global government for corporations.




Ball in particular expressed his idea of a government by the corporations, for the corporations, in order to benefit all mankind. Keep that in mind when you think you’re being paranoid.


The full hearing can be downloaded here, though it is a big file.

The bottom line is not that liberals – or conservatives – are evil.

It’s that neither the Democratic or Republican parties reflect the true values of the American people (and see this).

Indeed, a scripted psuedo-war between the parties is often used by the powers-that-be as a way to divide and conquer the American people, so that we are too distracted to stand up to reclaim our power from the idiots in both parties who are only governing for their own profit … and a small handful of their buddies. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Title sounds like a puff piece designed to inflame one group or the other between two identical REd, Blue groups.

Moronic to say otherwise...

Not even bothering to read if that is true.  Too tired to read worthless weekend fluff pieces

kurt's picture

Beware the TPP 

Trans Pacific Partnership

Hedgematrix's picture

I am cheerleader for anything at the expense of government. There is no greater evil than the state. 

whidbey-2's picture

Evil is as evil does,which is usually well.

GreatUncle's picture

When they handed power over to the corporation they did themselves out of a job the political fools. I DO NOT NEED POLITICIANS ANYMORE I DO HOWEVER NEED CORPORATIONS TO KEEP TRADE FUNCTIONING SO WE MAY AS WELL HAVE CORPORATIONS TO VOTE FOR AND DO AWAY WITH THE POLITICAL CLASS. Ooooops! That is now the most sensible option.

As corporations make all the rules, forward guide legislation, lobbying another do we really need politicians anymore and are politicians no more than the biggest and fattest parasites in society actually producing nothing because the corporations decide everything. As for democracy, no longer exists if it ever did and just an illusion to stop you necking the largest parasites that a good dose of DDT would solve.

Cloud9.5's picture


There was a time when the world was Rome.  The ruling families thought it would last forever as their rivalries, plots and coups played out.  They were wrong.  The modern day ruling elites think they have bested their forbearers.  They think this current state of affairs will continue forever.  They too are wrong.  The evidence is on the periphery.  The fantastic machine is already unwinding. I fear that history will repeat itself with even more resounding fury.  Never before in the history of mankind has the survival of civilization depended on one single technology, electricity. When the lights go out, the dark ages will return.

MeBizarro's picture

Completey 'free trade' has not and will never exist between nation-states.  Nation-states will always have tariffs and excise taxes on certain products and with a host of other limiations/prohibitions on items and services produced/owned by foreign firms or entities.  

The kind of globalization advocated by Rockefeller in the '60s vs globalization that was pushed by Reagan and GHW Bush in the late 80s/early 90shad some similar goals but some key differences too.  Understandably so the different geopolitics at the time, the nature of the US economy, and the US trading partners and tradestuffs. 

To argue too that the 'West' is the same kind of capitalism too is ridiculous.  'Anglo-American' capitalism has key different from 'Nordic Capitalism' vs 'European Continental Capitalism' vs other models especially around corporate governance and structure.  

nooyawka's picture

To put Geo Washington's article into a much larger context, I am just now finishing reading "From the Ruins of Empire" by Panaj Mishra. The book has been an eye-opener for me. All my life I have sided with The West and assumed it brought enlightened things into the world, like free trade, rationalty and the rule of law. Mishra writes from the point of view of the Asian and Islamic nations which were sujugated by the West over the centuries by the use/misuse of free trade. As far as Mishra is concerned, for centuries "free trade" was an excuse for militarily-advanced Western countries to force weaker/conquered countries to sell their natural resouces (including people) to the highest (and strongest) bidder.

Mishra's ideas are too new in my head to reach conclusions. But they are not too new in my head to make me an unbridled fan of free trade. Might does not always make right.


TradingTroll's picture

"s the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind"


or was that the death of mankind?


I throw up in my mouth every time I see the GE commerciaals during the Olympics, after all the misery they have caused Japan and the world over Fukushima, and plus the future miserfy.


And who is more miserable than spies Google, facebook, Microsoft, Apple and the rest of the tech giants and mid tiers.


Heck, now throw in the car companies with GPS tracking , and pretty much all of the multinationals have become just spies.

earl swagger's picture

+1 Add P&G to the crony list. Need a hacker with mad skills to develop a bar code app that can't be compromised. I'd be down for a bar code tattoo ..

earl swagger's picture

FTA is about perceived leverage & power. Consider the opportunity cost assoc w / the timeframe for Admin to remove FTA restriction LNG. The discussion US industrial complex does not run concurrent to our internal process like FTA. The Market goes to Qatar.

Without FTA restriction lifted, there is no long term 20 yr projects to consider. We are exporting our talent to foreign shores where the action is, Math & Science? Get out of the FKN way....

Australia has Nat gas & no infrastructure. May still beat USA to market gas/LNG I exports . BIG incompetent govt in the way,,,constantly.

Carl Popper's picture

What he says about reducing non tarriff barriers is very reasonable.  Efficiency of production is why we have our present lifestyles rather than a subsistence lifestyle where we make most of what we use ourselves. 


Reducing non tariff barriers and regulatory homogeneity is like a car.  It can be useful or kill you depending on the driver 

xavi1951's picture

And the sheeple said, "Great story GW!"

Zero-risk bias's picture

And the person who commented on what the sheeple said, said "And the sheeple said, "Great story GW!"" ... ad infinitum

Winston Smith 2009's picture

This was just broadcast last night.  Excellent:

Bill Moyers: The Deep State - Hidden in Plain Sight

Essay - Anatomy of the Deep State

Ignatius's picture

Moyer's guest describes 300 conspiracies, yet goes out of his way to say he's "not a conspiracy theorist".  The Deep State is a conspiracy, in plain site or otherwise.  On 9/11 we had COG -- continuity of government -- activated.  Were you, Winston, so fearful that as a result of the 9/11 terror attacks that this alternate chain of command was necessary?  People were shocked and angry, but the foundation of our country was hardly under threat.  COG was originally envisioned and proposed as a rational response to a decapitation strike by the former Soviet Union.

The problem people have is some image of conspiracy as a dark figure constantly waxing his handlebar mustache.  No, it's people coming together to commit secret, illegal acts.  We have a lot of that these days and they are routinely able to conceal their crimes under the "national security" umbrella.

One of these days you're gonna have a head-slap momment when you realize just what these powerful, connected forces can get away with when they need to and commit terrorist acts like 9/11.

Ignatius's picture

Labels are so fucking pointless.

You should know better, GW.

I don't give a fuck what people/organizations call themselves.  What do they do?

GoinFawr's picture

Right on, but how was that not GW's point?

Catullus's picture

A real "free trade agreement" need only be like 3 paragraphs long. And you don't need to agree to anything really. All a country has to do is state to the world that it's an open port with some exceptions. You don't have to go to another country and agree to open your own ports. Other countries just deal with it.

If it's anything but that, it's not a free trade agreement. You could only be adding exceptions to it or provisions to free trade. Meaning that you're agreeing not trade freely.

They're the biggest joke in international political economy. Yet morons still believe they're free trade agreements "because that's what they're called".

falak pema's picture

Wow, GW, the Reaganomics mantra began before BW revoke and LBJ knee jerk into Nam?

Remember the US's malevolent unilateral and hegemonic mantra began after JFK assassination.  

The MIC/Oil lobby  started jerking up the US hegemonic mantra as soon as LBJ took over, all the while Great Society and Nam weakened US balance of trade, making BW revoke inevitable. As US trade balance, French gold repatriation and US peak oil plateau of end 1960s made the US deficits spike alarmingly.

It was then that the US MIC and OIL cabal took over the world via US petrodollar handshake-- during 6 day war crisis-- and Dear Henry's "detente" policy to corner ME and open up China, all the while finding an out to US's dirty war in Nam/Cambodia, all the while applying US Monroe Doctrine to South America (CHile Pinochet demise/ Operation Condor CIA executed ramp up in Brazil/Columbia/Paraguay and Argentina).  

Its BW revoke and the danger of Japan Inc and Germany rising in 1970s tech export boom that started the FIRE economy strategy in GOP circles (not in Democrat circles). Reagan/Thatcher/ Volcker/ Greenspan then executed deregulated "supply side" mayhem via WS asset stripping and quarterly report focus. We were then deep into "greed is good" mantra of Ramboista USA. 

Here are THREE interesting articles on this issue (that Greta Krippner book is excellent) : 

Matt Stoller: "Free Trade" Pacts Were Always About Weakening Nation-States to Promote Rule by Multinationals | naked capitalism

Matt Stoller: Greta Krippner's “Capitalizing on Crisis” Describes Real Origins of Financial Deregulation | naked capitalism

Open Borders: A Morality Play by the 1% | naked capitalism

BTW : Rockafella and Ball (LBJ advisor)  were MIC and big business GOP leaning stalwarts...

shovelhead's picture

The first part of the mission is to eliminate the leaders of these small natural resource nations who embrace the quaint but dangerous notion that their country should profit by extraction and replace them with leaders with a 'wider international vision' and a secret bank account that needs to be filled.

It's a big job that only a big multinational entity can handle with some artfully placed operatives from a friendly superpower to insure success in the target country's 'evolution'.


adr's picture

100 years ago the industrialists set out to destroy competition and secure wealth and power for thier families for the next 1000 years. Competition and free markets meant that the great great Rockefeller grandson might be working minimum wage.

It has always been about returning to a feudal system where money and power was once again a birthright. The .1% all believe they are a higher evolved species of human, somehow greater than the little people. The rest of humanity must be shown the folly in believing they can control thier own destiny. They might screw it up, think of different ways to do things. Only a corporation run by a Rockefeller and financed by a Rothschild can make a proper decision.

 The new global monarchy will be the board of the global corporation. Its subjects, the population, will obey without question and enjoy the benevolence of their masters.

the tower's picture

Good article.

It's time the USA starts looking at itself in this light. The USA should break up into individual countries too. Let's face it, The USA doesn't even have a name, just "United States of America", no different from the "European Union".

Bring back government where it belongs: end the Fed, dismantle Washington.

If you, as an USA citizen, are against the EU then you should start at home and dismantle the USA.

MickV's picture

Get a clue GW. The FINAL nail in the cofin of US Citizen sovereignty is the placement of an illegal domestic enemy Usurper as President of the US. Obama was born British, of a British subject father, thus not a natural born Citizen.


When there is no legal executor of the laws, then there is no law, no "Constitution" and no "United States".


GW ignores this very real constitutional disaster, the consequences of which are directly before our eyes. Rule by executive order, no budget, financial criminals running free. Tell the truth GW you coward. The next round of illegal POTUS and VP is coming up (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal--- all born of foreign parentage). You think there is a reason that the NWO desires an illegal POTUS?

d edwards's picture

GW: the word "liberal" is not accurate; the real culprit is Progressivism (stealth Marxism) and infects both parties.


In a 2008 debate Hillary rejected being called a "liberal" and said she was more of an early 20th century Progressive.

Marco's picture

Progressives are not pro-free trade though ... not in words, and looking at the voting record of the most famous progressive politician of our time (Dennis Kucinich) not in actions either.

adr's picture

The real culprit is the tribe attempting to place themselves at the head of the world table. Through finance they have done one hell of a job. Almost everything you buy must go through the hands of a tribesmen first, even if they have no business in the production, distribution, or end sale of it. The troll under the bridge forcing everyone to pay.

Accounting101's picture

Will you read and comprehend the article before spouting off. People like you are why the middle class always gets it's ass kicked. You get drawn into the political tribal bullshit pretending it means something.

The big banks and multinationals rule you not the politicians, regardless of place of birth.

Raging Debate's picture

Accounting 101 - I disagree. When complex, remember 1,2,3.

The evolutionary pecking order of the organizational pyramid:

1) Citizens
2) Government
3) Corporations

Based on pure logic there can only be two choices for the "tribe"
and thier behavior:

1) They are stupid
2) They are ignorant
3) They were conducting a collective hive raid

The wealthy has and in general always will have access to the best 'tools' because we are monkeys with tools. Ego which is and is starting to be a less necessary survival tool drives much of mankind's decision making. I have no problem with a global government and global trade. We are heading that way whether any of us like it or not. My beef is:

1) No neutral global debate of areas to interface with leadership. They have closed off debate and want to send you memos from Davos from "The people that run your world". That is not hyperbole. That is a direct quote I heard on CNN in 2009 or 2010. Alan Greenspan did add some value to this world but fuck you pal when you say in 2004 monetary matters are not open for debate back in 2004. How's that lesson in humility going buddy? Humiliation is so awsome isn't it? We all globally being treated as peons have just loved it!

2) If a group of any leadership want to meet in Davos, that's cool. Publically broadcast all meetings as an open town hall on the net. Invite questions from the public and broadcast the actual plan.

Some of what lesdership did succeeded. Probably a lot more then we give them credit for a times. They haven't realized we are evolving so fast that pyramid style management which is Monarchy and trumpeted by President Clinton as 'triangulation' is now into four dimensional management structures. Facebook was an example. This man was touted as genius thinking and spouting off like an devolved ape. A monkey that thinks he brilliant and followed because of Greenspan's quadstacking debt bubble is worse to me than a dumb ox like Bush that caved into NWO (refusal of recognizing even 1,2,3) and Daddy.

The article was well written. Thank you GW for sparing us the hyperbole. Going forward, those that do not humble themselves be it because they cannot (predatory sociopath) or will not will be humiliated into isolation. No need for even a real jail cell, this hell is actually better for these primadonna's. If they dont wake up soon it will be "live from Davos" with about six hundred people total on a global basis watching.

I can forgive all with humility. I learned the hard way and most of us here did too. Laissez-Faire is a useful cycle for some reasons I won't get into detail on a commentary. But the sin I believe was after 2008 when it was a decision of those who could easily self-sustain and NOT worry about day to day survival fed the global citizen to the wolves. Such humiliated ALL of us. If it was me and I meant well as a ruler I just would have said "our cycle of evolution has a period of rapid growth, but the. a necessary reorganization period. We invite all thinkers to help reorganize our world for a more rapid return to growth. We did the best we could, there were success and alme failures". B.O. (Barrack actually said we should use net in such fashion ans while he is a puppet why no follow through by his superiors?)

But I doubt the Rothchild's and their type will learn the easier method of humility no different than the Pharoah's of old and please allow me to state a little more opinion. Those Pharoah's were far shrewder than this lot and rode out to battle many times WITH the soldiers. Hiding in the shadows makes me think of dirtbags, not even rulers let alone leaders.

Here is the other thing about the rate of evolution today. Dynasties don't last 500 years anymore. Perhaps 50 these days so it is wise to attempt to contribute to bring all mankind forward and out of the shadows. Because reality of evolution dictates such will make a prison of shadows fpr themselves now.

Isolation is hell, despite all the tasty food and woman that mostly pretend to love these men. Women need attention they will become sirens when they will become isolated with just a man, they are social creatures.

As for some of these rulers, even if a tiny minority within them think they can cause extinction they have another thing coming. Always hubris to think advanced weaponry will shield them from the same fate projected on others. Quantum physics. Ya some of us can play as well, but it is best to plead to them first for their own sake to humble themselves instead of us having to execute justice to humiliate them. I do not wish any of us to suffer for one nanosecond longer. I cannot explain in a simple commentary in quantum physics and recent developments why we are less than 50 years from the new promise land and we will evolve back into energy. It is after all an economic site here not a physics one but those that want to talk about physics or ideas that translate into them can email me at

Death to me is a relative term, it is ego that pretends we live forever (in any static form that is) including a dynasty.

Thank you for allowing me to humbly state my opinion and contribute.


fellow servant of all

MickV's picture

You need to read the Constitution and realize that the end game of the NWO is to VOID it by placing an illegal POTUS in office.

MickV's picture

Just like Europe installs unelected technocrats, and US install Muslim Bros. in ME.

ebworthen's picture

It's the Left/Right ping-pong ball game.

Who do real people turn to?  Left, then right, then left - getting smacked and eventually knocked off the table.

Niether side of the two headed hydra controlled by the banks give a shit about real people; they are the parasites.

d edwards's picture

Look to the new breed of what i like to call Liberty Republicans: Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and others. These are Constitutional Repubs. with a healthy dose of Libertarian. We need to vote out the Progressives in BOTH parties and get back to the Constitutional limits on gov't and libery for the citizens again.

hootowl's picture

Cruz is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen".

We do NOT need another ineligible usurper squatting in the white house.....nor another progressive jihadist like Killary and her sexual predator partner.

d edwards's picture

PS: just look for the people the press and old line RINOS attack and make fun of. They are the ones really doing their job.

autofixer's picture

NOt this Libertarian.  I just want the Constitution to be followed.  I am not an anarchist.

logicalman's picture

Quote 'I am not an anarchist.'

Maybe you should be.

Government is the problem so no point looking to government to solve it.


nmewn's picture

What is this rule of law thing of which you speak? ;-)

Randoom Thought's picture

"... a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind."

I suspect that he is not talking about efficiency, but rather labor arbitrage, since manufacturing technology declines and labor hours increase when moving the manufacturing to low labor price countries.

... and I suspect he is not actually talking about benefits to mankind when moving producuction to low price labor countries causes greater harm to the environment and greater energy consumption for transporatation.

What he is really talking about is "greater profits" for connected monopolistic multinationals and less freedoms for individuals as they are prohibited from being self sufficient and instead become dependent on mulinational corporations that have only their interest and the interest of their cronies at heart. It's a big club and they are ramming it up your ass.

slightlyskeptical's picture

No such thing as free trade as long currencies hold different values and workers make drastically differing wages. Until we have that consistency every country needs to produce what they are able domestically and then look to trade to fill the gaps for the rest. I say monetize all the governement debt and then issue currency to the people until you reach an equilibrium. So basically our money supply would need to be 6-7 times that of China in order to bring the currencies down to the same value per unit.

teslaberry's picture

this article casts the 'multi nationals' as evil. 


on some level they are because they go after the lowest hanging fruit and try to eliminate competition. 

on another level---they also borrow cheap and use this cash to spread their market power. so they are just throwing around massive borrowing power leverage banking power in home country to LEND selling power into a 'target' market. 

finally---they don't obey local environmental laws and frequently use countries as dumping grounds. 


other than these specific issues-----there is something very true about large companies being able to provide to foreign markets. 


consider venezuala. what would happen right now if a huge large multinational agricultural company from the u.s. were able to provide them food. guess what----people would eat!. 

so yea, starvation in some cases can be avoided by multinationals providing. however, there's always a catch. what X giveth, X can taketh away. 


there is no benefit without a cost .  unfortunately the converse is not true. 

SAT 800's picture

for teslaberry; you're really crazy.

Accounting101's picture

Jeffery Immelt, is that you?

litemine's picture

Teslaberry..... You would be on the other side of the battlefield from me. I would  trying to get my TRG 42 lined up for a head shot.

This is War....Food, You eat the MONSANTO gmo products, I'll not feed my children or grandchildren them.

It seems to me the closed door meeting are forcing Mulitinational products on people without the rights to inform them about any dangers just like the tobbaco company's have. With the help from New York's (INTERNATIONAL) courts stating that warnings about health problems were Illegal.

Farther more....Keep your Fucking CIA out of my and other countries, they are only war mongering  for Multinational profits and there should be open season on them .

I don't give a shit what you allow to happen within the (OLD GREAT) troubled USA but given a chance, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger, on anyone from their Mercinary Army / NSA / CIA /IMF /Council of FR or any other bastard that lives above the Laws and morals I have been Taught.  I'm not religious, so I do not believe in thou shall not kill, but in an old laws such as "HE NEEDED KILLING".    Greed, and those who serve the Masters are as guilty, ignorance is no excuse and you Sir have no excuse for breeding . May you rot with an unknown desease that is incurable, grown out of bad Science. Please and do it soon.


teslaberry's picture

hey i feel you. 


i see where you are comign from. you are like the native americans. the noble savage. you think youre way of life is 'better' . I don't think it is or it isn't. and i'm not going to engage on this comment board in propoganda that the 'multi-national' way of life or democracy or american way of life is 'better'. it isn't 'better' . these are subjective values. 


what you are not seeing is that the native americans perished because their method of living was economically inferior. their culture revolved around ---as all cultures revolve around----an  economic system. the native americans were primarily nomadic pastoralists with limited agriculture and NO industry. their version of money was mostly trinkets . they had no reliable credit system as in the west. they could not raise armies. and most importantly they did not gate off land for agriculture. which promotes capital investment and savings by those who WORK THEIR LAND the best. 


as a result they had less economic power with which to fight war. if you cannot fight you die or get chased off your resources. 


you my friend are living under an inferior economic system.  and just because the banking system of the west is overleveraged and destined for some sort of collapse DOES NOT MEAN that this is the be all and end all of the modern multi-national economic model. 


china is now embracing this, the west will continue through multi-nationalism through the next economic collapse as well. 


I do not think you understand how economic systems are set up to be incompatible with one another. the native americans had their culture destroyed because their economic system was destroyed. what is now left of them is just a ghost skeleton of their past. provided to them generously as a last means of consolation by an expanding soveriegn. 


 you are entitled to fight the economic empire you speak of----and it is not just monsanto. but in the end----if you don't form your own aggressive economic system within your own sphere, you will be influenced by others' spheres. 

there is no 'perfect balance' in this darwinian system. there is a dynamic compeititon to dominate or be dominated. and of course----survival of the fittest culture always rules in the long run. so domination isn't always the preferred strategy. ( i would argue the u.s. empire is on its way out for this reason---but its means and methods certainly are not, as they are being taken up by other 'nations') 


janus's picture


these down-votes you're getting trouble me; and it's a disturbing pattern that continues to trend here on our beloved Hedge.

goddamit, gentlemen!  telsa isn't making 'value' judgements; he isn't endorsing one world-view over another; he isn't asserting an implicit darwinian-sorta 'fairness' as it relates to the disequilibrium of various cultures/societies/models whence they engage, compete and mediate their conflicting and/or common interests.

his arguments are sound; his logic is well-supported; and, above all, he isn't attempting to force his interpretation of societal development into some platitudinous narrative of good v. if there were anything 'moral' about the 'advance' of history.

i, for one, applaud you, tesla.

most of you -- in spite of all the brave voices now attempting to hew the mental fetters that so bind you -- prefer instead to recline in the fluffy sophistry of reductive, reflexive and stunted thinking -- the lukewarm nirvana into which you've been so perfectly conditioned.  the realities of this world do not, will never and cannot comport to the expectations endemic to your most treasured narratives.  

i hate to be the one to yank the electric blanket away; i know it's a bummer when one can no longer incubate the warm-fuzzies of ideology and cultural mythos; but sometimes that thing what goes bump in the night is santa clause on a meth-bender -- and sometimes he busts down the front door, kicks the dog, rapes, pillages and 'rehypothicates' your assets.

but, amorica, just keep on leaving those cookies and milk on the mantle...let's just think happy thoughts and 'hope' a better world into being.

the ants go marching one-by-one/

hurrah! hurrah!/

and they all go marching down/

to the ground/

to get out/

of the (red) rain,

janus  (  )

{you think not tellin is the same as not lying, don't you...bitchez}

SAT 800's picture

very, very dis-functional brain.

Raging Debate's picture

Teslaberry - Even the least intelligent guy on the street knows the problem is lobbying. Bribing politicians to pass laws that may jeapordize human lives is what that other passionate (needs killin') commentator's point was. You missed it entirely and embarrassed yourself.

Monopolies that arise from bribing government have terrible service and overpriced products.

We pay government to be a referee like a boxing match. When the referee allows two boxers in the ring to fight against one because he got bought off, well the audience gets nauseated and leaves. That boxer gets taught he will have to also cheat to have a chance to win, moral hazard.

general ambivalent's picture

No, the native americans perished because they did not kill the first people who landed on their shores. They were too friendly, or human, all too human, and they were then manipulated and taken advantage by lesser humans, and a lesser economic system. They were destroyed through biological warfare and the diseases that an inferior system brought to their shore.

Progressing towards absolute destruction of the world is not better, and it is not progress. The idea that there is only an economic system is one of the greatest disasters in history, whether through marxist or liberal theory the end result is the same.