Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mikew

Shock Doctrine

Recommended Posts

I saw it.

1. Create a disaster or observe some natural disaster.

2. Get the government/army to move in.

3. Move the people out during these distressing times, for their own protection.

4. Sell off anything to your friends for peanuts.

5. Rinse and repeat.

Can I really believe that a countries government would initiate a collapse of their economy and literally starve and torture their people into submission. TinFoil.gif

After watching that, of course I can. :o

Edited by XswampyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the book, for detail, reading it at the moment. Depressing, but neccessary. Shame Milton Friedman died a natural death, he should have been tortured and shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
governments implementing free market policies

show me

Pro-corporation policies, then.., sell off anything of value to large international corporations for peanuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
governments implementing free market policies

show me

Indeed

Chicago School capitalism is NOT free market capitalism

It's rampant corporatism fully sanctioned by government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed

Chicago School capitalism is NOT free market capitalism

It's rampant corporatism fully sanctioned by government.

Yes, Shock Doctrine is a leftist polemic which cannot be treated as balanced, I'm not saying it doesn't raise lots of valid issues.

One of the flaws is the implicit assumption that opposition governments in the South American countries studied would have been any less unpleasantly autocratic. Chavez in Venuezela's halo keeps slipping and has to be carefully hidden. Much like Obama, the BBC rarely publicises domestic opposition to their policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Shock Doctrine is a leftist polemic which cannot be treated as balanced, I'm not saying it doesn't raise lots of valid issues.

One of the flaws is the implicit assumption that opposition governments in the South American countries studied would have been any less unpleasantly autocratic. Chavez in Venuezela's halo keeps slipping and has to be carefully hidden. Much like Obama, the BBC rarely publicises domestic opposition to their policies.

I haven't read the book, but Guatemala is a good example of how the US has buggered up its back yard.

"In 1954, Arévalo's freely elected Guatemalan successor, Jacobo Arbenz, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas was installed as president in 1954 and ruled until he was assassinated by a member of his personal guard in 1957. Substantial evidence points to the role of the American United Fruit Company as instrumental in this coup, as the land reforms of Jacobo Arbenz were threatening the company's interests in Guatemala and it had several direct ties to the White House and the CIA. (See United Fruit Company - History in Central America)."

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone watch this tonight on C4? Very interesting documentary exploring how certain govts have exploited or even initiate shock events in order to implement free market policies.

On catchup

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-sho...ies-1/episode-1

Yes. An absorbing documentary. Unfortunately, disaster capitalism can ultimately lead only to one thing... disaster. Milton Friedman, may you rot in hell.

Edited by RajD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didnt really watch it, but when they mentioned post 911 disaster capitalism, i just thought Al Gore and Global Warming con :lol:

Don't forget swine flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed

Chicago School capitalism is NOT free market capitalism

It's rampant corporatism fully sanctioned by government.

The whole concept of Capitalism based on free markets is a historical fictional con job

concocted by 19th Century idealogists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America has overthrown democracy in Iran in '53, in Guatemala in '54, in Brazil in '64, in the Dominican Republic in '63-65, in Indonesia in '65, in Greece in '67, in Chile in '73 etc, etc,

Irrefutable Proof:

It's all too easy to indulage in a retrospective critique of US led proxy wars. However, the Cold War was a real war against the threat of communism, a far greater tyranny than capitalism, and it was a war that really needed to be won.

It was South America which produced a flashpoint that brought the world closest to nuclear annihilation

The whole concept of Communism based on unfree markets is a historical fictional con job

concocted by 19th Century idealogists.

Fixed

Edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all too easy to indulage in a retrospective critique of US led proxy wars. However, the Cold War was a real war against the threat of communism, a far greater tyranny than capitalism, and it was a war that really needed to be won.

It was South America which produced a flashpoint that bought the world closest to nuclear annihilation

The U.S. not only fabricated but created Communist pretexts to justify overthrowing governments & installing Pro-U.S. Business fascist regimes.

Check out the declassified CIA documents about Operation Washtub in my vids, where the U.S. planted arms with Soviet Markings on Arbenz to make out he was a Soviet puppet.

Or the declassified documents that show that the U.S. fabricated evidence of Mossadegh's connection with the Tudeh (Communist) party in Iran.

The Cuban missile crisis was a containment of American/Capitalist Imperialism, not Soviet imperialism, since it stopped the Americans from invading Cuba.

Also, the Soviets were well within their rights to put nukes in Cuba, since the Americans had Nukes in Turkey pointing right at Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i did wonder a few months back if this whole mess was plan that has gone wrong and is now horrible out of control ?

I think so. Human beings are the market but they distort the market, and should be annihilated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read the book a year or so ago. Wasnt convinced on the parallels with Dr Cameron (?) and the LSD/mind wiping experimnets but allowing for a little artistc license then its a good book.

Missed the programme though as in bed. Thats late for me 10pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky's work on U.S. hegemony & it's countless atrocities is far more scholarly &

far-reaching than Naomi Klein's.

Check out:

Hegemony or Survival,

World Orders, Old & New,

or Manufacturing Consent.

Shock doctrine is just the tip of the iceberg.

BTW, here is an interesting interview with Chomsky about the IMF & it being

"more or less a branch of the US Treasury" which gives the exact opposite advice

to the poor countries as it does to the rich:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21162

"I mean, the record of the IMF has—the IMF is more or less a branch of the US Treasury, even though it has a European director. Its past role has been extremely destructive. In fact, its American US executive director captured its role when she described it as "the credit community's enforcer," meaning if a third world dictator incurs a huge debt—people didn't, but the dictator did; say, Suharto in Indonesia—and then the debt defaults, the lenders, who have made plenty of money because it was a risky loan so they get high interest and so on, they have to be protected, meaning not by the dictator, by the people of Indonesia, who are subjected to harsh structural adjustment programs so that they can pay back the debt, which they didn't incur, so that we can be compensated, rich Westerners can be compensated. So that's the IMF, the credit community's enforcer, a very destructive role in the third world."

"So, say, take Indonesia again. Indonesia had a huge financial crisis about ten years ago, and the instructions were the standard ones: "Here is what you have to do. First, pay off your debts to us. Second, privatize, so that we can then pick up your assets on the cheap. Third, raise interest rates to slow down the economy and force the population to suffer, you know, to pay us back." Those are the regular instructions the IMF is still giving them.

What do we do? Exactly the opposite. We forget about the debt, let it explode. We reduce interest rates to zero to stimulate the economy. We pour money into the economy to get even bigger debts. We don't privatize; we nationalize, except we don't call it nationalization. We give it some other name, like "bailout" or something. It's essentially nationalization without control. So we pour money into the institutions. We lectured the third world that they must accept free trade, though we accept protectionism. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black death would do the job perfectly. (or a made up civil war.)

Men with masks move into neighbourhood to clean the streets and loot from homes, shops and businesses. The people all move out, happy that they still have all their limbs attached.

Everyones a winner!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all too easy to indulage in a retrospective critique of US led proxy wars. However, the Cold War was a real war against the threat of communism, a far greater tyranny than capitalism, and it was a war that really needed to be won.

Also, putting aside total CIA fabrications of Soviet threats such as the CIA Operation Washtub (which planted soviet arms on Arbenz to make out he was a Communist Puppet) & the black propaganda used in Iran to taint Mossedegh as pro-Communist & in the Domincan Republic to taint Bosch as pro-Communist, there is the issue of the real Communists:

Even though Allende in Chile was Marxist, he was no Soviet puppet. The declassified record shows that the U.S. feared the fact that he was independent, rather than a puppet & that he might become a shining example of Socialism.

In Indonesia, the Communist party was attempting to come to power through peaceful democratic means, & since it was the most popular party in Indonesia it was about to. That's why the U.S. had to help Suharto slaughter up to 1 million of them.

Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam was no puppet of Moscow either. CIA specialist Ray Mcgovern is on the record as saying that the Vietminh were independent & no agents of Moscow.

Proof.

More Proof.

McGOVERN: "They were Marxists through and through, but nationalists first, I would say. And there’s a big difference. In other words, if they were traditional Marxists, as we looked at the “international communist movement†in those days, they would be subservient to – or at least susceptible to influence from Moscow and Beijing. These fellows were independent."

It really isn't that easy to critique U.S. proxy wars objectively. The truth is hidden. It takes a year or two of personal research, reading through 10s of thousands of declassified CIA & State Dept. documents. But the truth is there, for those of us who bother to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god, just watched it - twas a rogues gallery from hell - Pinochet, Thatcher visiting him for tea, Ronnie Reagan, Yeltsin. Even Al Gore. Then, to top it all, Milton Friedman and his hangers on. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Really got me wondering what games these berkshire hunts are playing these days. Other than stealing all our money and giving it to the banksters that is.

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.