Ethics Law and Society – October 9, 2018 – Veena Dubal

Ethics Law and Society – October 9, 2018 – Veena Dubal


[ Music ]>>So, Peter Phillips the broad
topic of his new book here, “Giants” which is the result of
years of research on his part on the topic of wealth
accumulation and the powerful people
who dominate the workings of everything that has to
do with both of those videos that I just should you. The weapons industry, the media
industry, there’s a chapter on media, there’s a
chapter on military. Who are these people? So, Professor Philips
was the director for National Project
Center for many years. And he is still actively
involved with that, still doing work there.>>Well, actually I’m retired.>>He retired from
working there. Just finished this book which
is the culmination of years of research onto that sort
of larger question of so, what’s happening, what are the
whys and how does it come to be that these people have so
much power in the world, and just who are they? He is a professor of
sociology here at Sonoma State. And his focus was the
sociology of media. But he is also an expert
now in the mass structure of those people that
Eisenhower was warning us about, they have too much influence. How connected they
are to one another and that’s what he’s going
to speak to us about today. So, please give a welcome
while I get him hooked up here to this. [ Applause ]>>Okay. Well, welcome to the
sociological world of global power elite. In this research book,
we present information that shows how the transnational
elites interact as a class of people and function as
managers of global capital. We identified over
300 power elites, which are the key managers
of concentrated capital. They generally know each
other, often personally, they do business together. They hold significant
personal wealth, they share similar educational
and lifestyle backgrounds and they retain kind
of global interests. Nearly all served on
boards of directors of major capital
investment companies and other major corporations,
and banks. They meet in non-governmental
policy organizations and form new ones as needs arise
to privately make decisions for government, security forces, and world institutions
to implement. Jeff Bezos is listed
by “Bloomberg’s” as the richest person
in the world, he’s currently worth
over 160,000 billion. He’s founder and CEO of Amazon. He’s the owner of
“The Washington Post,” he’s a Princeton University
graduate, and the first person in the world to be
worth over $100 billion. Right behind him Bill Gates,
co-founder of Microsoft, graduate of Harvard, net worth
close to 100 billion, 96. And then right behind
him is Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway. The three richest human beings in the world are
all US citizens. Gates and Buffet make major
philanthropic donations to charities of their choice. And all three receive
significant attention from the corporate media. However, while they are
wealthy individuals, capable of significant
influence in the world, they are not individually part of the global power
elite in the book. We focus on the sociology
of elites in power. Whereby networks institutionally
connected exercise collective influence and power in the world through transnational
organizations to facilitate and protect global capital
on an international level. Think of it like Jeff Bezos
as the big tree in the forest, but he’s not the forest. This is about the
sociology of the forest and the power those people have. After 2001, and 9/11, I really
focused on the conditions that were occurring in
the world at that time. We’ve seen permanent war. We’ve seen it continue, 9/11
gave us the justification for the US involvement worldwide
and NATO was right behind it. We’d kind of had permanent war
before that since World War Ii, but we never really
acknowledged it that way. But today, we have
special forces operating and killing people in
150 nations in the world. Centralized idea fort he
global power elite is a concept of the transnational
capitalist class. And this has been
theorized in literature for the past two decades. In “Giants” we review
the transition from the nation state elites,
described by C. Wright Mills in a book “The Power
Elite” 1956, to a transnational power elite,
centralized in the control of bulk capital in
today’s world. And when Eisenhower
gave that statement about the military industrial
complex at the same time that Mills was bringing his
book out, “The Power Elite.” Since then, 60-sum years later,
these elites have mobilized. And they operate around
the world in terms of very highly structured
capital. But we seek to raise awareness of power networks affecting our
lives with the state of society. Similarly to Mills, and
these are the people who decide whatever is decided in the major consequence
of the world. Capitalist elites exist
everywhere in the world. The globalization of trading
capital brings those elites into an increasingly
interconnected relationships to the point that
scholars now talk about transnational
capitalist class. The book, “The Transnational
Capitalist Class” by Leslie Sklair sociologist
from the London School of Economics argued that globalization has elevated
transnational corporations to more influential roles. The result is that the nation
states actually become less significant than international
agreements developed through the World
Trade Organization and other international
institutions. Emerging from the multinational
corporations is a transnational capitalist class. Those loyalties of
interest, while still riveted into their corporations are
increasingly international in scope. Our effort was to identify
the most important networks of the global power elite. We name 300 individuals in the
book as the core policy making, non-governmental networks
that manage, facilitate, and protect the continued
concentration of global capital. The global power elite
are the activists core of the transnational capitalist
class, which is the top 1% of the people in the world. They serve the function of providing ideological
justification for their shared interest and
establishing needed actions for implementation
by nation states and transnational
government organizations. Deep inside the transnational
capitalist class was what David Rothkopf called the superclass. In his 2008 book. He argued that the
super class consist of about 6% of 1000 people. One-thousandth of one
percent of the world. These are the bottles attending,
most dream, private-jet flying, major corporation,
interlock policy building, planning, elites of the world. People at the highest
peak of global power. They’re 94% men,
predominantly white from North America and Europe. These are the rock pile planner, these are the people setting the
agenda, for the G7, or the G20, NATO, The World Bank, WTO. They’re from the highest
levels of finance capital, transnational corporations,
the government, the military academy,
non-governmental organizations, spiritual leaders and
even shadowing needs within the national
securities organizations. William Carroll in
his 2010 book, “The Making of the Transnational
Capital Class” focused on the consolidation of transnational
corporate policy networks. He looked at the years 1996 to
2000 and said the average number of members on the corporate
boards dropped from 20 to 14, and they’ve consolidated
even closer since. University of California, Santa
Barbara Sociologist William I. Robinson wrote the
introduction to “Giants: The Global Power Elite.” He writes, ‘we are
living through the time with a dire mobile crisis, social polarization
worldwide has reached unprecedented levels. The figures compiled by the International Development
Agency Oxfam now, well-known, the richest 1% of humanity
in 2017 control over half of the world’s wealth
and 20% of the people in the world control
95% of the wealth.’ Robinson writes in his book “The
Theory of Global Capitalism” that ‘500 years of capitalism
has lead to the global shift in which all human activity is
transformed with the capital. In this view, the world
becomes a single market and a privatized
social relationship.’ Robinson in his book
“Global Capitalism” writes, ‘humanity helps us to
understand the concentration of the wealth created
the world crisis.’ Permanent war, they would
want a part of that, right? Robinson claims the world
faces an unprecedented crisis of social inequality,
environmental degradation, global violence, and
economic destabilization. He says the world
system has centralized over accumulated
capital to the point that investment opportunities
are limited, and there’s only
three mechanisms of investing excess capital. Risky speculation which led to
the subprime mortgage collapse, and almost collapsed the
entire world in 2008. War and war preparation. Spending on war,
governments spend on war. And they pay corporations
to produce weapons, and the weapons are used,
and then they replace them. It’s a massive part of the
profit making in the world. And the third area of capital
investment, there’s more capital than there are opportunities
to invest in, the third area is via everything
is considered public commerce. Water rights, freeways,
universities, even churches, and resources. They privatize all of that,
looking for profit and return. In our research, we identified
the people on the board of directors of the top 17
asset investment companies of the world. These firms each have in excess
of $1 trillion in management. Now, think about
what a trillion is. A trillion is 1000 millions. So, there’s 17 companies
that have over $1 trillion in investments. Some of these have 6 trillion. These 17 companies have 199
directors on their boards. This group of 199 people
represents the central financial core of the world’s
transnational capitalist class. Collectively, those 17
companies control $41.1 trillion in their operating
funds, and they operate in nearly every country
in the world. They are the central decision
makers regarding the financial capital, the powers of the
global economic system. Those 200 people, could pretty
closely fit in this room. So, we identify all of them. We have bios on them feedback
in terms of who they are. But they are also
part of the flow of capital investment
everywhere in the world. These financial giants
represent the interest of several hundred thousand
millionaires and billionaires, who comprise the richest
people in the top 1% of the global hierarchy. Well, this wealth is
very, very concentrated. So, some of them are BlackRock
at 5.4 trillion in 2017, over 16 trillion today. Vanguard at 4.3 trillion in
2017, over 5 trillion today. JP Morgan Chase 3.8
trillion in’17. Allianz, so, Pimco, Pimco are
the bond market buyers here in the US, and Allianz
is stationed in Germany. They control $3.3
trillion in assets. Now, this, when I say
assets, this is money. This is wealth. This is money that could be
transferred electronically. Amazon became a trillion-dollar
company. But that’s not, they don’t
have $1 trillion in cash. They have all their
assets, their buildings, and their packings and
all that kind of stuff, which is considered an
asset, but it’s not cash. We’re talking clear cash. We’re talking about the ability
to take money and move it and invest it somewhere
at the tune of close to $50 trillion this
year, just by 200 people. UBS, 2.8 trillion,
based in Switzerland. The rest of them here
are Bank of America, 2.5, Barclays Bank 2.5, State Street,
Fidelity, Bank of New York, ASA, Capital Group, Goldman Sachs,
Credit Suisse, Prudential, Morgan Stanley, and Amundi. Those are the 17 French national
gold giants that have more, now about $50 trillion worth
of money that they manage. There are 17, 199 directors,
41 trillion in 2017. The top asset companies
all invest in each other. JP Morgan and 14 others are
invested directly in BlackRock. They collectively invest over
400 billion in each other, so this cluster here
of 17 giants and all their interconnected
investments. So, there’s one large cluster
of capital that is the core of global capitalism
in the world. Where they know each other, and
they interact with each other in a variety of ways,
we’ll talk about that. They watch each other, invest
in each other, and that’s, that 400 billion
is only part of it. A lot of this is done,
and it’s not in NASDAQ, it’s not in any public records. During the course of
when this book came out, he finished in ’17, during the
course of 18, bring new giants, the green ones on the left, came
out that were over a trillion; BMP, Parvest in France,
Northern Trust in the US, Wilmington Management Trust
all gained over 1 trillion that they were managing. So, technically they’re twenty
$1 trillion companies today, although a couple of them
have climbed a little bit. So, when we look at the next
nine giants, the orange ones on the right up there, those
companies with over 800 billion, they’re all invested
in each other. So, you get this cluster
of 30-sum companies, 29, with $50 to $60 trillion worth of capital all following
each other’s investments, knowing where that
money’s going. And continually,
collectively pushing together for increased return on
investments worldwide. It’s important to
note that the giants, or near giants heavily
invested in Silicon Valley. Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet,
Facebook all take the lead with hundreds of billions
of dollars in their shares. Amazon and Apple were
the first two to have over $1 trillion
worth of wealth. In the case of Amazon, the
top investment management corporations are
Vanguard at 56 billion, BlackRock at 49 billion,
FMR at 33 billion, State Street Capital, all of
those are invested in Amazon, and those companies hold
58.6% of Amazon stock. So, Bezos got really rich
very quickly as the stocks that he held, smaller percent,
became increased in the value, they engaged in this
speculation of investment and that was the first company
to reach $1 trillion of assets. So, there’s certainly
some collaboration going on between these
investment companies. The fact that the 17 giants are
highly inter invested is very clear, with an inner penetration of capital investments
creates a vast consolidation of centralized global capital
with a clear commonality of interest, promoting
and collecting growth, and growth isn’t always good. All 17 giant corporations
are invested in Coca-Cola. Coke is a major contributor
to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay in the world. More than 10 teaspoons of sugar
in every single bottle of Coke, some 184,000 deaths
annually are linked to Coke and similar sugary beverages. Coca-Cola, the world’s largest
soft drink company releases 110 billion single-use
plastic bottles into the environment in 2017. And only a tiny fraction
of those are recycled. It takes 450 years for
a plastic Coke bottle to degrade in the environment. So, there’s this massive
polluting that’s going on and these companies, the core
giants are all invested in this. The giants know full well
that war and preparation for war is highly profitable. You can see evidence of this by
the investments the giants have in the top three military
companies in the world. Lockheed Martin,
the 17 giants have over $50 billion invested there. Northrop Grumman, 22 billion. Boeing 50 billion invested in
those giant military companies. The world’s wealth is estimated
to be close to $255 trillion, with the United States and Europe holding
2/3 of that total. Meanwhile, 80% of the
world’s people live on less than $10 a day. The poorest half of the
population lives on les than 2.50 a day and more than 1.3 billion people
live on $1.25 a day. So, of those, 795 million
people are suffering from chronic hunger. This is reported
in the UN figure in the World Food Program. Each year, poor nutrition kills
3.1 million children that are under the age of five. Twenty-five to thirty
thousand people die every day of starvation and
malnutrition in the world today. That’s ten 9/11 incidences
every day. A slaughter of human
beings from starvation. This slaughter is
going every day. It’s 10 million a year. And chronic hunger is a
problem of distribution, as 1/3 of al the food produced
in the world is wasted and lost. Post-9/11 wars continue to
wreak havoc, chaos and death for military in Africa
and other regions. More than 65 million people are
displaced refugees fleeing war and famine. These wars are not just the
results of military adventurism and political conflicts but are
motivated both by propaganda and ideological fears
from the media. And the desire for profits
off military investments. Permanent war on terror
is good for business and capital investment. War becomes an institutionalized
mechanism for continuing to lead capital accumulation
and growth. For many, the ultimate
crisis in humanity is short of global nuclear war is
environmental degradation. Religious scholar, David Ray
Griffin asked in his book, “Unprecedented,” can civilization
survive the CO2 crisis. Since pre-industrial time, the temperature has risen 1.4
degrees causing significant changes in world’s weather. The giants are heavily
invested in the 100 companies that are the source
of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse
gas emission. That’s oil companies
and others, carmakers, that are the many companies. There’s only 100, that make 2/3, over 70% of the greenhouse
gas emissions are coming from. There’s a 10-year time
lag between CO2 emissions and temperature change. So, even if we cut
back drastically now, like California is
trying to do in 20 years from now, or 25 years from now. We will continue to
see rising temperatures for decades to come. These then, rising
temperatures will lead to increasing severe weather
events, which means storms, record-breaking heat and cold,
floods, fires, tidal surges, high death rates, financial
losses all of which could lead to private war and civil unrest. If left unchecked, we really
face ecosystem collapse and massive extinction
of the white water. The global power
we’ve identified in this book are the world’s
central capital money managers. Every year the accumulate
greater concentration of wealth and are embedded in an
unrelenting quest for more. Most important concern for
the power need is protecting capital investment. Ensuring debt collection and building opportunity
for future returns. If protecting the
environment is profitable, then green investments
are acceptable. What remains unacceptable is
to spend the money on people, the environment and services
that do not benefit capitalism. This lack of concern for
human betterment intended or not is the core contradiction of a transnational
capitalist class, and the true crisis
of capitalism today. Reversing this madness
is the duty of all humanitarian-oriented
people. We believe that by naming
the global power elite, as we do in this book, we
can encourage enough of them to realize their own
humanitarian impulses and then under collected pressure,
encourage a retraining of our global economic
system and face the realities of environmental crisis. In “Giants” we identify 199
people on boards of directors of the 17 asset firms. This group of people represents
financial management of core and global capitalism. They are the central
decisionmakers regarding the financial capital and the powers
of global economic system. Western governments,
international policy bodies work in their interest to protect
global capital, the free flow of capital anywhere in the
world and debt collection. So, all capital governments
work in support of this concentrated
global capital network. So, who are some
of these elites? Jamie Dimon, chair
of JP Morgan Chase, on the Federal Reserve
Board of New York, on the World Economic Forum,
Council of Foreign Relations. Trustee of New York University. He’s a Harvard graduate MBA,
his net worth is 1.3 billion. Lloyd Blakfen is chairmen,
CEO of Goldman Sachs. He’s on the Deans’
Council of Harvard, on the World Economic
forum, he’s on the Council of Foreign Relations, JD out of
Harvard, net worth 1.1 billion. Goldman Sachs paid him
20 million last year. He’s retiring this year. Lawrence Fink, Larry. He is the CEO of BlackRock. He’s also on the PNC
Financial Services Group Board because they’re co-invested. He’s on the New York
Stock Exchange, Council of Foreign Relations,
the Business Round Table, trustee of New York University,
World Economic Forum. He’s on the Directory Council
of Foreign Relations Board. He’s a UCLA graduate
with an MBA. Got his first job in
Boston and then with help, with connections
there, created BlackRock and they are now the largest
investment company in the world, they’ve got over 6 trillion. He’s paid 25 million in ’17 and he’s currently worth
around 500-million. Erskine Bowles. He’s the Lead Director of Morgan
Stanley, Capital Partners. And his wife, Crandall Bowles
making them the only married couple on this list, is the
director of JP Morgan Chase. The two of them together
were worth 60 million in 1999 according
to [inaudible], but none of their
listings are public. That’s probably close to a few
hundred million at this point. Reuben Jeffery, III
director of Barclay’s CEO of Rockefeller Company,
National Security Council, Council of Foreign Relations. Has over 80 million in
Goldman Sachs stock. Barclays pays him
157,000 to go to meetings, and he’s got 1.9 million
in Barclay’s stock. Dambisa Moyo. She’s from Zambia. She’s the director of marketing, she’s on the Barrick
Gold Corporate Board, she’s on the Chevron Board. She goes to the World Economic
Forum as most all of them do. She’s in the Bilderberg Group. She went to Oxford,
St. Anthony’s College. She also went to Harvard and American University
obtaining a Master of Public Administration MBA. She gets $200,000 from
Chevron to be on their board. And gets 176,000 from Barclays and Barrick pays her a
couple hundred thousand. So, she’s on multiple boards and
makes close to a million just by being on those boards. And has written a
couple of books, well-known in the
upper elite circles. So, these 199 people
are a very select group. They all know each other
or know investment. The director of the
17 asset firms, the management firms
represent the central core of international capital. They’re the power
elite managers. Some of them will
retire, like Blakfen. Some of them will pass
away, a few did last year. But the network itself,
it’s self-perpetuating. The people, others will be
like them, will be brought in and keep that network
intact, keep that $50 trillion of wealth continually managing,
growing, and expanding. Sometimes they cheat a little. And almost all of these
companies were involved in the Libor price fixing
scandal, going back to 2003, where they were falsifying
data to create benchmark rates. Those rates affected your
credit cards, your auto loans, your home, your student loans,
they affected everything. They got clocked, most of
them paid significant fines, 1.5 billion UBS. Citi Group paid 425 million, JP
Morgan Chase paid 360 million in fines to Federal Regulation
Board and the European Board. But for them it’s just the
cost of doing business. Because you know their
returns were significant. Some of the same
banks were involved in manipulating global
currency exchange rates. Citi Group, JP Morgan, Barclays,
World Bank of Scotland. And they all paid fines, $5 billion to the justice
department and the regulators. We don’t claim that any single
individual that we identify in this study has
done anything illegal. But we point out that the
structural arrangements within the monetary
management systems of the global capital
offer many ways to achieve maximum
return on investment. Some of those conditions for
manipulation are always present. The may in fact be violated. Members of financial
core play an active part in policy groups worldwide. The World Bank with the
largest voting share controlled by the United States is one of these transnational
state organizations. The other is the
International Monetary Fund, whose primary purpose is
to ensure the stability of the international
monetary system. Also included in this, the G20, which is the top 20
central banks and governors from the major economies
in the world. The G7 which you hear
about; all you hear about. And these are Canada, France,
German, Italy, Japan, UK, and the United States. Russia used to be in it,
it used to be the G8, but they kicked them out. And China isn’t welcome
even though China’s richer than most of them put together. So, there’s some
politics being played. But the G7 is number 1 for governmental economic
policy group in the world. There’s also The World
Trade Organization, which established regulation
on international trade that are all controlled
by the government with the most wealth invested. There’s the International
bank of Settlements, which is an institution by
central banks in 60 countries that foster international
monetary and financial cooperation. Now, it’s important
to note that all of these aforementioned
international organizations are controlled by governments,
and governmental institutions, offering and they, the ones with the most voting
rights are the ones that have the most money. Global power elites also set up their own non-governmental
organizations to discuss global economic
policies and give instructions and recommendations
to the WTO, IMF, The World Bank, and the others. So, the capitalist elites, the
global power elite are engaged in a number of organizations
that are outside of governmental control. One of the biggest and most
well-known is the World Economic Forum. Which is an annual meeting
of some 3000 people in Davos, Switzerland in January. And it costs $25,000
for someone to go. Every corporation with over $5
million in assets is allowed to send 5 people, about
a thousand of them. And if they send 5 people,
one of them has to be a woman. So, that’s how they get more
women to be able to attend. There are several hundred
that some from civil society, government administers, and
companies are allowed as I said to bring up to five people. The World Economic Forum is
similar to the summer encampment of the San Francisco
Bohemian Club, which meets here
in Sonoma County. Both events host
thousands of elites. The Bohemian Club out in the
Russian River is a private 2000-acre enclave where
two or three thousand men, only, meet every summer. To hear selected keynote
panels from famous, important individuals on
major socioeconomic conflicts of the day. That’s what happens in Davos,
that’s what happens here in Bohemian Grove and other
places around the world, there’s time for
discussion, meet and greet. However, there are no formal
policymaking recommendations or set specific agendas
for governments to consider emerge
from those groups. So, there’s a lot of consensus
building, meeting each other, talking about what we should do. But they don’t formally
make policy decisions. The other group, that’s rather
well-known is the Bilderberg Group, established in 1954. And it’s about 200 elites
from around the world who gather every
year, in the summer at a famous resort, somewhere. They say that the Bilderberg
website says that thanks to the private nature
of the meeting, participants are not bound by
conventions of their office for pre-agreeing positions. As such, they can
take time and listen, and reflect, and
gather insights. There’s no detailed agenda. No resolution to
pass, no votes taken, no policy statements issued. In 2016 Bilderberg
annual meeting was held in Dresden, Germany. Topics were China, Europe,
migration, roads, Middle East, Russia, US political
landscape depth, cybersecurity, geopolitics of energy,
the precariat. Precariat are the downwardly
mobile middleclass people in the major industrialized
countries in the world. And they’re pretty upset
because they’re in decline. And they’ve been studying
that, worrying about them. that’s probably what
brought us Trump. And it’s recently reported
that [inaudible] earlier one of the ones, attended the
2018 Bilderberg meeting for the first time. The International Monetary
Conference is a privately held annual meeting of the top
200 bankers of the world. It’s hosted by the American
Bankers’ Association, which serves as the
secretariat for the Congress. It’s usually in Canada,
or the US. These most important
power elite, private policy organization
is the Group of 30. This is non-governmental. The Group of 30 describe
this team as having a deepened
understanding of international economic
and financial issues that explore the international
repercussions and decisions made in public and private services. G30 is a highly influential
institution in the arena of global financial governance. It was founded in 1978, and
recent reports from study groups from the top power elite
bankers, financier, policymakers, and academics. Their reports are widely
accepted and implemented around the globe by the transnational
organization collective World Bank and in the world
economic by the IMF, International Monetary Fund. So, the G30 policy
direct, the council of 30, I call them the executive
committee for global capitalism. They’re highly educated, 16
of the 32 people have PhDs, from major universities. In 2017, the group had
31 men and 1 woman, Gail Kelly from the
Australian Bankers’ Association. They were a little
sensitive about that, and they added Maria Ramos
who is chief executive officer of Barclays Africa Group,
has such joined them. The Group of 30 have
direct links to the IMF, the Bank of International
Settlements, The World Bank, the Basel Committee, the
Financial Security Board, the G7, the G20, WTO,
the Federal Reserve. These people are core
to global capitalism. All 32 members of G30
have been keynote speakers at the World Economic
Forum in Davos. Six of the financial giants, the trillion-dollar
companies have direct members from their board on the G30. The G30 brings together 32 of the most powerful
people in the world. They are essentially
the executive committee of the global power elite. They formally develop policy
recommendations outside of governmental oversight, when
they make a recommendation, they expect it to
be implemented. So, this is non-governmental. And governments,
transnational organizations, intelligence agencies, the
Pentagon, all will listen and observe, and take note
of what they’re recommending. The other big non-governmental
policy group is the Trilateral Commission. This is an executive committee
of as many as 55 members. Originally formed in
1973 to bring together, without governmental oversight,
the highest-level elites in the world, to
address important international problems. The story was that
Rockefeller and Brzezinski went to Bilderberg Group in
the late ’60s, early ’70s, and thought well
this is pretty cool. We should do this ourselves. So, they funded the
Trilateral Commission in the early ’70s,
Rockefeller did. Originally it was Europeans,
Americans, and Japanese, which is why it was called
the Trilateral Commission. Twelve of the seventeen giants,
have one or more representatives in the Trilateral Commission. Today, the Trilateral
Commission has 375 members from 40 countries
around the world. Eighty members from the US, 20
each from Germany and France, 18 from Italy and the UK. Asian group has 100. They meet annually in
New York, but they meet in regional meetings
around the world at various times
during the year. The goal is to keep the
Trilateral Commission a policymaking body free of
direct and government control. So, if you’re a member and
you’re appointed to a minister in your government,
you’re asked to stepdown and help find somebody else
from your country to kind of you know, participate. Now, it’s very important
what they’re doing. So, they have a report in 2014
called the Trilateral Commission Taskforce on Engaging Russia
a Return to Containment. The report expressed alarm
caused by the Russian invasion of Crimea and invasion
in quotes there, because the Russians
didn’t invade Crimea, they already had bases there, 97% of the people there were
Russian and the separated from Ukraine, because
they were part of the Ukraine administratively,
the Russians weren’t going to give up their seaports
and we knew this all along. But it gave us a really
good reason to say, oh they’re being aggressive
and they’re acting out, even as described in
this report as bringing about a ruthless
break with the west. Abandoning Gorbachev’s vision of Russia joining its
common European home. The Trilateral Commission feels
that Russia is not contributing in global stability, but rather
aspires superpower status. And US business leaders
are concerned about the anemic growth of the
economic climate in Russia. A quote from the report
says that in short, “Russia always was and
will remain different. Acceptance of that
otherness should be a premise for forming our views
on Russia’s future and our relations with her. Even if Moscow seeks
normalization of the west, the nature of Putin’s
regime permits little more than a transactional
US Russia relationship on their ranges of issues. Putin’s departure
from office, however, may produce a transformational
moment and tend real systematic
change in the Russia system. Russia politics can be invented
almost from the ground up, perhaps creating broader
possibilities for encroachment.” In other words, we’re going
to try and get rid of Putin. So, concern with Putin as
a topic that is very root and alert, uppermost in
the minds of Trilateral. They put out this report. Government posse and
elite leader, global power and elite leaders are salivating
over the opportunities for investment in Russia’s
vast economic resources; gas, and oil, and minerals all that
Siberia, I mean massive amounts of investment possibilities
there, that would really allow that global capital structure
to expand and grow and continue to even make more money. Some of the people
involved in this process. Tim Geithner, we got there,
is one of the people on the. Council of Foreign Relations
and president of Warburg Pincus. He’s a former treasury and
secretary of the council and member of the Group of 30. He’s on the Trilateral
Commission, also developer groups so
he’s highly connected, highly involved. Philipp Hildebrand Vice
Chair of BlackRock in Europe. Former chair of Swiss
National Bank, Bank of International
Settlements. Jean-Claude Trichet from France, Bank of International
Settlements. Honorary chair of the Group
of 30, Bilderberg Group, part of the Trilateral
Commission, governor of the Bank of France. Axel Weber, Germany,
chairman of UBS, Bank for International
Settlements, Group of 30. He’s on the G7, the G20, Ministers of Government
Financial Boards, World Economic Forum. I’m going to stop the pictures. Now, the power elite,
continually worry about the unruly masses
rising in rebellion. Elites work hard to
protect their structure of concentrated wealth. The US Military Empire
has long been a protector of global capitalism. The United States has more
than 800 bases in 70 countries with the US NATO forces along
with NATO now employing 70% of the world’s nations. US Special Operations are with
troops are in 147 countries. The Atlantic Council is a
global policy lead organization established in 1961 for
the voluntary alliance of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, NATO. It’s private. It’s privately funded,
it’s non-governmental, and they make policy
recommendations. They have a budget
of 20 million. And the Atlantic Council
provides regular weekly reports, policy recommendations are
part of their activity. The reports are created without
direct governmental involvement and offer a more power elite
interpretation of world affairs. So, the Atlantic
Council are members; the executive committee
are included in the members of my global power elite. Nineteen of the executive
committee members specialize in global security issues. Many with decades
of involvement, 14 have worked with, or
managed major capital investment companies. And 19 have held
high-level positions in US government and/or
multiple administrations. Collectively, they supervise
the building of policy and recommendations for
changes in government, military, politics, and a perceived
direction for action. NATO command structure,
always under a US general, pay special attention to the
Atlantic Council reports, protecting all the capitalism
and the capital building secure and safely invest worldwide
is their primary agenda. Western governments and
international policy bodies seek to serve the interest of
the global power elite. Wars are initiated to
protect their interests. Uncooperative regimes
are undermined, overthrown in support of
the free flow of capital. Regime changes and attempted
regime changes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela,
Yemen, Afghanistan, the Balkans all examples of war to support the transnational
capital. Gadhafi in Libya, there’s always
a media negation of the leaders as they’re doing
with Putin right now. Gadhafi was demonized
in the western press. Accused of being a terrorist,
no documentation for that. But, his main sin
was he was trying to organize the African
nation with oil to sell their oil
and gold to the west. That was unacceptable and
that’s why he was gotten rid of. We engineered a coup, we engineered mercenaries
to come in. There was fighting. We said he was being repressive
dictator killing his own people, and we took him out. We started bombing,
NATO started bombing. The same thing happened
in Iraq essentially. Saddam Hussain was the first oil
producing nation in the world to sell their oil in
euros not dollars. And you know what
happened to him. So, this idea that our global
military structure advised by the Atlantic Council, is
protecting global capital, protecting the concentration of
wealth and capital [inaudible], is very much part of what
my main point is today. Wars are to protect
global capital. Now, if for some reason, the
American military empire, or NATO looks slow on
getting something done, slower than corporations would
like to see changes happen, private security, so private
military companies are available to protect global assets. This protection includes
personal security for the executives and
families, green zones. Protection of safe
residential areas. Intelligence gathering
on democracy movements and opposition groups. Weapons acquisition,
weapons system managements, strike forces, military
actions, and assassinations. There are private
companies that do all that. The standing crises of
desperate men; refugees, alienated workforces, and environmentally [inaudible]
means an unlimited opportunity for private military companies
to engage in protection services for the global power elite. The largest, second largest
employer in the world is G4S with 625,000 people
in 120 countries. [Inaudible] G4S has a budget of
over 10 billion and they operate in complex environments. They will accept jobs that national armies
are not trained to do. Chevron contracts G4S for counter-insurgency
operations in the Niger. G4S also operates like
that in the South Sudan. So, when we saw the protestors
being attacked by dogs up in the Dakotas on the
pipeline protest, that was G4S, that was their dogs and their
private security people. Another well-known private
company, Blackwater. Recently called Academi
and now they’re a company called Pastelis. But Eric Prince was still very
much the key person involved in what we know as Blackwater. His sister, Betsy DeVos
works for Donald Trump as the Secretary of Education. Pastelis newest division is EP
Aviation, Eric Prince Aviation, which is an air force of military helicopters
providing services in Africa. They are one of the most
powerful profitable military companies in the world. He’s trying to get Trump to
privatize the war in Afghanistan so that US troops wouldn’t be
there, it would be Blackwater. So, a little bit on what
I call the ideologist. Global corporate media
are owned and controlled by the global power elite. Their primary goal is the
promotion of product sales and pro-capitalist propaganda through the psychological
control over human desire, emotions, beliefs,
fears, and values. Corporate media do this by
manipulating the feelings and cognitions of
human beings worldwide and by promoting
entertainment viewing as and thus distracting
the global inequality. Corporate media receives
news content from public relations
and propaganda firms. Meaning that nearly all content
inside the global corporate media system today is
prepackaged and managed, news opinion and entertainment. So, the big six; Comcast,
Disney, ABC, Time Warner, HBO, 21st Century Fox,
[inaudible] in Europe and Viacom CBS all get
their main news content from three big public relation
firms on the Omnicom, WPP, and Interpublic Group. These companies, worth billions of dollars are all invested
very heavily by the giants, and they’re putting
out the messages, not only in the products
that they want you to buy. I mean there’s nothing
in Safeway that one of these three companies
doesn’t represent. But, also they work
for governments, they work for the military,
the work for the Pentagon. They’re putting out messages. There’s even specialty groups
that will help countries in times of war to
maximize their return; their public relations agenda. So, the messages include things; you know continued
aspiration of material product. To keep us wanting
things and buying things. And expand and demand
for life of luxury. A fear of others;
terrorists, criminals, and people perceived
as a threat. A notion that private
corporations are essential element of democracy. And this is what Noam Chomsky
called engineering opinion and parading enemies. The giants are heavily invested
in the public relations firm as they are in the
corporate media. So, everything we
see on television, except you know whether it’s
going to rain tonight, again, and what sort of the local
sports teams are doing, and then any crime
stories or new disaster. Everything else pretty
much is packaged. Anything happening anywhere
else in the world is going to, you see, it’s all packaged
news that’s pre-written, pre-spun that’s coming
to us essentially as entertainment and propaganda. And I say that without
reservation. I mean, the film we
saw was 20 years ago. It’s gotten much, much
worse and we’ve traced out how these propaganda
are doing this. So, what needs to be done? We don’t offer a prescription
for where we’re going. What we’re trying to do
is identify a small number of people who control
global capital, control everything
we know about them. Ideas we know about them. Influence wars and
regime changes. Making huge amounts
of money off of that, continuing to concentrate
wealth. Greater inequality is
going on in the world, more people are dying than not. And they believe that they’re
going to grow their way out of; capitalism will grow its
way out and it will trickle down to everybody and
we’ll all be happy. That’s not going to happen. That is not happening. And we can’t do it
environmentally, and we cannot, it doesn’t trickle down. So, 90 of my friends and
associates we signed a letter to these 300 people saying, you know we want your
grandchildren’s grandchildren to be here. And have a stable world
to live in, you’re going to have to make some changes. If not, civil unrest and environmental collapse
will change it for you. But if you do something
in the meantime, we hopefully there’s some time
to start taking major parts of global capitalism and putting
it at the bottom, feed people and take care of them. And to fund education,
and everything that we all need here. So, I’ve had many people
respond and say, no possibility, they’re not going
to ever do that. Well, we’re going to
have to make them do it. we’re going to have to engage
in social actions of variety of sorts and that
stuff just voted. I heard a recent statement about
how, you know we have one part in it, it’s called
a corporate part. And there’s two wings;
the democrat wing and the republican wing. They’re still all in
favor of corporate. And as you look at
these numbers, as you look at the concentration
of global wealth, you can’t come to any other conclusion. No politician would
run out about and ask for massive amounts of money
for anything above city offices. You going to run for congress,
you need a whole lot of them. You going to run for
senate, you need millions. And all of that is coming
from your global power elites. And it’s that way
everywhere in the world. So, knowing this, be willing
to talk about this and knowing who the people are I think is
a bit stemming more from it. But we need a common moral code. What we can agree on. And I think there’s
one instrument, one code that is very
important for us, that’s the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Passed by the United
Nations in 1948, two or three years
in its development. All governments at that time
said this is what human rights are, what people should have. If you don’t know it,
I highly recommend, it’s included in my book. You can look it up quite easily. Yeah. And it’s vital. If we can mobilize and
engage in, according to that, those values, we’re on the right
track, no matter what we do. So, I’ll end with that and
I’ve got time for questions. [ Applause ] Yeah. [ Inaudible Student Question ] All the above. [ Inaudible Student Question ] Those giants are
invested in everything, and they are individuals
you know like Bezos buying of “The Post” for influence,
and typically in Washington. But he’s just one
tree in a forest. And we can understand that
there’s a small set of people at the highest level controlling
this massive amount of capital and they need to
continue to grow it. I mean capitalism
is like a bicycle, it’s got to keep moving forward. If you stop on a bicycle, a
two-wheel bike, what happens? It falls over. That’s called stagnation
in economics. Nobody’s buying, nobody’s
engaging, nobody’s borrowing. That’s terrible for them. They want to keep
growing and keep going. That’s the nature of that. We’ve got to incorporate taking
care of everybody in the world and human rights in that process
or we’re going to lose it all for ourselves and our kids. Yeah?>>Are there any
examples of any elites that don’t behave the same way,
where profit is the end all?>>There are, like
there are elites that give away a lot of money. But they’re giving money away;
like Bill Gates he puts a lot of money in education and
a lot of money in Africa. But it’s his decision and he’s
really privatizing education and trying to increase
that in that capacity. I’m a strong believer in
the democratic process of what needs to happen. People know what their needs are
from the bottom up and we need to be transferring wealth
from elites in some capacity and let people decide what they
need and is their top priority. So, my answer is not really. There’s some that
try to do something. There’s some that are more
aware of environmental issues and that, but I don’t think
that they really believe that; I think the believe certainly,
the big ones I studied, their personalities I
think and the BlackRock and the JP Morgan guy, they have
great houses, they’ve got kids, they’ve been married to the
same person their whole life. They keep believing
that capitalism is going to grow its way out
of the problems. They want to privatize
Social Security. It’s, we’re in; if they’re
allowed to continue; I think they honestly
believe that. And then they of course
benefit from it, prosperous. But we’ve got [inaudible] and very strong
environmentalists have been camped out in front of some
of those people’s homes down in New York City just
recently there’s been a lot of protests, particularly
around BlackRock because they’re so heavily involved in
the CO2 gas emissions. But that’s just a
little stretch. When Occupy was in New
York, they went to the homes of the billionaires and
camped out in front of them. I’m hoping that this will give
us a much better awareness of who the people are. I don’t advocate violence. I certainly don’t advocate
attacking them personally in any way. But calling them out,
pulling the covers back, saying you’ve got to do
something to make changes in this world and you’ve
got the power to do it, I think [inaudible] all would
be aware of [inaudible]. Yeah?>>You mentioned
that the permanence of a war is what’s
giving a lot of power to these typical elites, but
are they not interconnected and diversified enough where
if there was world peace that they would carry
on and continue with their wealth gathering
without missing a beat?>>Well, it would
be a major part of global capital
increasing at war. If they didn’t have war,
they would have more capital than they can adequately invest. So, they would have to restructure capitalism
completely to be investing at the bottom and
having people engage and utilizing the surplus, 2 to
3 billion people in activities that were supportive
to the environment, and their country,
and humankind. And that would be a
major restructuring. I think we’re capable
of doing that. But right now, that’s not
on their agenda at all. Yes?>>They have so many like
holdings and have so much power in terms of what they
own, and how it affects us in our daily lives,
what’s to keep them from just laughing us
off when we oppose them? Because they, I mean it seems
like they control so much of everything through
their holdings that there’s really not much
we could do against them, even if we call them out. They’ll just be like
well, what are you going to do, I can buy it all.>>That’s true. Yourself, by yourself you
would have to have a whole lot of folks and friends engaged and in college we’ve
run some various forums where you know poor people
movements, labor movements. And we’ve had, in the history of this country we have
the civil rights movement, the labor movements, which
highly impacted elites. And they made some concessions. The Civil Rights Act, Wagner
and the Social Security Act in the thirties because
they were afraid. And we’re going to have
to make them fearful that their lives
will not be able to continue unless
they make adjustments. And I’m not talking
about guillotine here. somebody wrote me
and said we have to bring back the guillotine. And I was quite sharp in fact. And I said, no that’s
not the answer. [ Inaudible Student Comment ] Well, I showed my Chris
Edwards’ talk last night in my sociology power class. And he’s the one who had
been quoted as saying that you know you’ve got one
corporate party in the US. And that’s really
what it’s like. And you have a little more
sensitive democratic side, in terms of humanitarian issues
than on the republican side, it’s really all about profit
taking and the market side. We don’t have much
opportunity in that capacity. There’s been making some big
media stuff in regards to some of the new young
socialist candidates, the Bernie Sanders candidate. I mean Bernie, if democrats
haven’t interfered with Bernie, he would have taken
the Democratic Party. They manipulated him, they
control, votes were stolen, there was manipulation and he
probably would have beat Trump and we’d be in better
shape today. But I’m not saying
it’s hopeless. But it’s not unless
there’s some major shifts, and we really can engage
at a grassroots level with some shared understandings. Elizabeth Warren isn’t
going to save us. You know, I think we need a
better choice of candidates. [ Inaudible Student Comment ] Well, yeah, it gives
us access to a lot of information very quickly. But what we’re seeing now in the United Council
was actually involved in that was giving prescriptions
to Google and Facebook, who to eliminate, who to
cutback on, who to serve, which kind of algorithm
to be involved with. Blaming the Russians for
what they said was fake news. And so, that’s very
concerning to me. That the internet won’t be
free, we won’t have full access and it’s being manipulated. So, a number of the critical
analysis sites, Common Green, Counterpunch, ones that
I find very educational, very good critiques have been
limited now in Google searches, they don’t come up as much. So, I’m very concerned
about that. That’s something
you all should be. I mean don’t you want to be
able to know full access. I mean, we need to have
full, complete access. Even for people we
don’t like at all. Because you know at university
we have all free speech. And it’s we can say
stuff and debate it. There should be no area
we can’t talk about. After 9/11 happened I had
speakers come here who said that there was some
real concerns about 9/11 and what happened and we needed
questions answered and hacked, or you don’t bring
it up in topic. There should be no topics
we can’t talk about. Yes? [ Inaudible Student Comment ] They’re hard to talk to though,
so I don’t have an answer for that, you know I wrote
50 of them in New York, asking them to come to my
first speech there last month, but none of them came,
and nobody’s responding to the letters being sent. But, some I think are concerned. I’ve got zero reviews in
corporate media on my book, but it’s all over
on you know analysis and I’m probably got 200 other
sites who have done reviews. So, we’ll see. I’m not going to say
that’s the answer, it’s my contribution
here, what has to happen. That’s why we don’t’ come up with a prescription
of how I make it. We can’t do that. I mean it’s going
to fall apart sooner or later in some capacity. And we’re concerned that it’s
going to be sooner than later. I mean 2008 was just a runner
up I mean if it wasn’t possible; I mean imagine your
ATMs don’t work. There’s no gas. I mean you can’t access
what resources we have, everything’s shut down. How are you going to survive? I mean it could be chaotic. It could happen really quickly. So, you [inaudible]
at home, I don’t know. [ Inaudible Student Comment ] Well, all the central
banks, in 2008, their governments created
extra money for them. And the feds do the same
thing, here’s 34 trillion that they essentially
give to banks to loan. And they’ll give it to
them with 0 interest. So, here’s some money go a long
let’s simulate things going. In fact, even in some countries,
they need to stimulate things so much that they pay banks
to take money and borrow, and then they try to
get a return on it. It’s called negative
interest rate. And so, they keep priming it. and that’s why we have
inflation, that’s why, you know things keep getting
more expensive all the time. If the dollar flat is
the global rate for oil in the International Exchange
Rate, we’ll see prices go up really high here fast. That’s great. Hopefully we are
going to see a deal with it before it reaches
that kind of a price. Yeah. [ Inaudible Student Comment ] They’re trying to show
it down a little yeah. Yeah. Right. [ Inaudible Student Comment ] Project Sensor has the links to probably 50 news
organizations we consider appropriate and it’s just at
projectsensor.org and look for our independent news links. Economic wise, Global Research
out of Canada [inaudible] one of the best ones to understand
what’s going on globally in terms of economics. Trade agreements with of course
tariffs on China are really about requiring China
open up capital investment in their companies about 50%,
that’s their primary claim. Plus, they want to
balance it out so they need to have 200 billion more orders, purchases from the US
and stuff like that. So, you know it’s all in
protecting the capital. It’s this concentrated
global capital as well. Any war, any trade agreements, it’s all about that including
our recent agreements with Canada and Mexico. Well, thank you. [ Applause ] [ Music ]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *