John Perkins pt. 2 - Konspiracy? Hit first, hit harder... no mercy hit man!

Como parte de uma conspiração para dominar determinadas regiões a Guerra Econômica sempre foi uma das principais estratégias para que os estados obtivessem seus fins. Países como a China ou os EUA sempre tiveram nas suas estratégias a Guerra Econômica. 

Como o próprio Perkins disse, os fins geopolíticos dos países estão nos recursos naturais, poder lucrar através deles, e se posicionar. Ataques especulativos eram a principal forma de quebrar um país economicamente, fazendo com que o país tomasse empréstimos absurdos para que seus recursos fossem bem utilizados e então os endividava de uma forma impagável, desta forma o país ficava a mercê de novos banqueiros, e depois se projetar nele através de créditos, ajudas internacionais, humanitárias, empreiteiras que se propunham a reconstruir o país. Perkins aponta que esta estratégia de quebrar o país através de sua economia era um primeiro estágio para a projeção de poder.

Após quebrar o país ficava fácil para que um país perdesse a confiança em seus líderes. Iniciava-se uma guerra civil, problemas de infraestrutura básica, e logo o país se via quebrado, como se encontram os países considerados falidos, por exemplo.

Caso esta primeira estratégia falhasse, enviavam os chacais e por último uma especulação sobre uma possível guerra, genocídios, etc. se formava para que fosse capaz de enviar exércitos e ter uma declaração de guerra formal (ou informal, foda-se a forma!), como foi no caso do Afeganistão e do Iraque.

Quem estuda sobre o assunto parece mais uma conspiração de Vril, extra terrestres nazistas, Brice Taylor e a MK Ultra, governos secretos, mas de fato os acontecimentos como são narrados são fatos, talvez alguma coisa omissa, mas historicamente há provas que esta prática foi comum, gerando a quebra de diversos países, além de paraísos fiscais em regiões mais pobres do planeta. A grande especulação sempre foi que os bancos privados estavam sempre a frente na sociedade capitalista, com a tomada de empréstimos e garantias de crédito a juros abusivos, porém com a promessa de uma estabilidade econômica.

Sem que fosse sugerido, há projeção de poder diante de algumas regiões de interesse global, como é o caso da Eurásia ou mesmo da América Central, lugares geopoliticamente estratégicos para diversos blocos.
O que intriga é como após a quantidade de ataques uma figura destas não foi ainda assassinado. A NSA desmentiu as ações de John Perkins, dizendo que foi ressentimento por não ter conseguido uma vaga de emprego na agência após ele mesmo ter fugido do alistamento para a Guerra do Vietnã. Mas operações de desestabilização, psicológicas e guerra inconvencional e irregular são praticas comuns, e como falado, a Guerra Econômica é um mecanismo que atua diretamente nos gastos diretos do governo de algum país, sendo esta prática menos agressiva visualmente.

Eeben Barlow comenta sempre em seus textos que na África esta foi a principal forma de promover guerra civil e dividir os países, sempre tendo como objetivos seus recursos naturais ou uma posição estratégica favorável, com braços armados favoráveis a seus objetivos, grupos extremistas locais, mercenários e por fim as ajudas humanitárias.

No livro Ruled by Secrecy, Jim Mars mostra como funcionava a questão dos bancos. Existe uma forma de dividir a riqueza do mundo entre uma elite formada, que impõe a sociedade numa massa de manobra para alcançar seus objetivos. Mesmo sendo uma forma de ação da economia, existe muita semelhança e também simpatia pelo comunismo em unificar uma sociedade e ter uma liderança única capaz de controlar toda a mídia e meios de produção. Dentre outros livros podemos citar também Political Ponerology, de Lobaczewski, que trata a mente da liderança dos governos por trás de políticas impositoras.
Assim cria-se um mundo controlado por tecnologia, amarrado a banqueiros e que toda a economia depende e um agente apenas, logo todos os recursos naturais necessários, mão de obra, são requisitados, mídia toda influenciada, por sinal, por uma esquerda que age exatamente dentro de uma hipocrisia mascarada de liberdade, pois o grande ideal de liberdade, igualdade, é puramente explorado para beneficiar grupos pequenos. Guerrilhas locais servem apenas para impor uma realidade que não irá acontecer, qualquer problema existe por trás as forças especiais, operações psicológicas e a economia ditando as regras. E abrir mão do capital em prol de uma nação igualitária é limitar quem pode ter dinheiro, porque não existe economia sem capitalismo, e Marx sabia quando escreveu aquela merda de manifesto.

Nesta linha de pensamento:

"The pathological face must be hidden from the world somehow, since recognition of the deviant rulership by world opinion would be a catastrophe. Ideological propaganda alone would then be an inadequate disguise. Primarily in the interests of the new elite and its expansionary plans, a pathocratic state must maintain commercial relations with the countries of normal man. The pathocratic state aims to achieve international recognition as a certain kind of political structure; and it fears recognition in terms of a true clinical diagnosis."(LOBACZEWSKI. p, 197) 

"All this makes pathocrats tend to limit their measures of terror, subjecting their propaganda and indoctrination methods to a certain cosmetology, and to accord the society they control some margin of autonomous activity, especially regarding cultural life. The more liberal pathocrats would not be averse to giving such a society a certain minimum of economic prosperity in order to reduce the irritation level, but their own corruption and inability to administer the economy prevents them from doing so." (LOBACZEWSKI. p, 197)
...
"Any psychopathologist studying this phenomenon will be reminded of the dissimulative state or phase of a patient attempting to play the role of a normal person, hiding his pathological reality although he continues to be sick or abnormal. Let as therefore use the term “the dissimulative phase of pathocracy” for the state of affairs wherein a pathocratic system ever more skillfully plays the role of a normal sociopolitical system with “different” doctrinal institutions."(LOBACZEWSKI. p, 197)

"In 1970, Brzezinski wrote in foreign Affairs, a CFR publication, "A new and broader approach is needed—creation of a community of the developed nations which can effectively address itself to the larger concerns confronting mankind. ... A council representing the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, with regular meetings of the heads of governments as well as some small standing machinery, would be a good." (MARS.) 

"Later that year, he published a book entitled Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. Within those pages, Brzezinski spelled out his vision for the future. He prophetically foresaw a society "... that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communication."" (MARS)

"It would seem that events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela might be enough to deter us from another conflict; yet, in Ecuador the situation was very different. This war would not require the U.S.
Army, for it would be fought by a few thousand indigenous warriors equipped only with spears, machetes, and single-shot, muzzle-loaded rifles. They would face off against a modern Ecuadorian army, a handful of U.S. Special Forces advisers, and jackal-trained mercenaries hired by the oil companies. This would be a war, like the 1995 conflict between Ecuador and Peru, that most people in the United States would never hear about, and recent events had escalated the probability of such a war." (PERKINS. p. 206)
...
The end of Saddam, like the end of Noriega in Panama, would change the formula. In the case of Panama, once we had reinstated our puppets, we controlled the Canal, regardless of the terms of the treaty Torrijos and Carter had negotiated. Once we controlled Iraq, then, could we break OPEC? Would the Saudi royal family become irrelevant in the arena of global oil politics? A few pundits were a l ready questioning why Bush attacked Iraq rather than funneling all of our resources into pursuing al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Could it be that from the point of view of this administration — this oil family — establishing oil supplies, as well as a justification for construction contracts, was more important than fighting terrorists? (PERKINS. p. 2011)
...
"In the final analysis, the global empire depends to a large extent on the fact that the dollar acts as the standard world currency, and that the United States M i n t has the right to print those dollars. Thus, we make loans to countries like Ecuador with the full knowledge that they will never repay them; in fact, we do not want them to honor their debts, since the nonpayment is what gives us our leverage, our pound of flesh. Under normal conditions, we would run the risk of eventually decimating our own funds; after all, no creditor can afford too many defaulted loans. However, ours are not normal circumstances. The United States prints currency that is not backed by gold. Indeed, it is not backed by anything other than a general worldwide confidence in our economy and our ability to marshal the forces and resources of the empire we have created to support us." (PERKINS. p. 2012)

 Segue mais uma série de vídeos:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a book written by John Perkins and published in 2004. It provides Perkins' account of his career with consulting firm Chas. T. Main in Boston. Before employment with the firm, he interviewed for a job with the National Security Agency (NSA). Perkins claims that this interview effectively constituted an independent screening which led to his subsequent hiring by Einar Greve, a member of the firm (and alleged NSA liaison) to become a self-described "economic hit man".

According to Perkins, he began writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man in the 1980s, but "threats or bribes always convinced [him] to stop."

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with debts they could not hope to pay, those countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows: Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly-paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to privatise their health, education, electric, water and other public services. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

In the book, Perkins repeatedly denies the existence of a "conspiracy." Instead, Perkins carefully discusses the role of corporatocracy.[2] -- November 4, 2004 interview I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh's government who was Time's magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.