Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Posted by Ali Reda | Posted in | Posted on 11/25/2013

Perkins defines economic hit men as the one supposed to justify huge loans for countries. These loans would be for major engineering and construction projects, which were to be carried out by MAIN and other U.S. companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster and Brown & Root. Then he was supposed to help bankrupt the countries that received these loans after the U.S. companies involved had been paid and only a wealthy few of the country became even wealthier while the rest of the country became more entrenched in poverty and became even more anti-American. This would make sure that these countries would remain in debt to their creditors and would then be easy targets when the U.S. needed favors such as military bases, UN votes and access to natural resources like oil. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. Economic hit men [EHM] don't actually work for a United States government organization such as the Central Intelligence Agency. It was during the 1960s that we saw the empowerment of international corporations and multinational organizations such as the World Bank. This allowed for governments, corporations and multinational organizations to form mutually beneficial relationships. United States intelligence agencies were able to use these relationships to their advantage.

Perkins' first assignment took him took to Indonesia. If the U.S. could gain control of Indonesia (with the debts that would incur thanks to the loans for these huge projects), they believed it would help ensure American dominance in Southeast Asia and save the country from communism.

In 1972, Perkins was sent to Panama to close the deal on MAIN's master development plan with the country. On his trip, Perkins met with Panama's president and charismatic leader, Omar Torrijos. Torrijos was well aware of the EHM practices and knew fully how the game was played. Torrijos did want to invest in huge advancement projects in electricity, transportation and communications for Panama, but he wanted to make certain that these projects benefited his entire country, including those living in extreme poverty. To do so would require huge amounts of money from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
Next was Saudia Arabia, in 1973 and during the war, as the U.S. provided Israel with more financial aid, Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil producing countries imposed a total embargo on oil shipments to the U.S. While the embargo was short-lived, its impact was huge as Saudi oil prices jumped from $1.39 per barrel on January 1, 1970 to $8.32 on January 1, 1974. As a result, Wall Street and Washington became obsessed with protecting American oil supplies and the U.S. was forced to recognize Saudi Arabia's importance to its economy.  The U.S. wanted Saudi Arabia to guarantee to maintain oil supplies at prices that would be acceptable to the U.S. and its allies. In exchange for the guarantee, the U.S. offered the House of Saud a commitment to provide complete political and military support. The condition would be that the Saudis buy U.S. government securities with their petrodollars and that the interest earned on these securities would be used to pay U.S. companies to convert Saudi Arabia into a modern industrial power.

Ecuador's Jaime Roldos was the ideological match to Panama's Omar Torrijos. He wanted to redistribute wealth and land to the poor people of his country. Roldos had to fight multi-national oil corporations in his bid to control Ecuador's vast oil reserves. His biggest competitor was Texaco. It was rumored that in Ecuador the big oil companies had colluded with, and bought out, one group of Christian missionaries. The SIL, or Summer Institute of Language, had a stated goal of teaching English to native tribes people throughout the Central American region. The SIL was accused of persuading indigenous tribes to move off their native lands to central camps in order to receive free food, health care, and education. In return the tribes people had to agree to sign their land over to oil companies for exploration.

The sudden death of Roldos in a plane crash in spring 1981. The world reacted with the outcry of "CIA Assassination!!", however, the US media barely covered the event at all. Torrijos stood up to Reagan and rejected the SIL missionaries from Panama. Just a couple months after the strange and freak death of Roldos, Torrijos experienced his own plane crash. Security guards claimed the plane had a bomb on board and once again the world cried out,"CIA Assassination!!".

Also Venezuela has been a prized nation by economists and engineers, which has made it a target for EHM's and the corporatocracy. Until Chavez was elected in the late nineties the country lacked a leader with enough strength and charisma to stand up to the corporate behemoth. Venezuelan oil was being pumped out of the ground for the profit of foreign companies and the country was saddled with immense debts at the time Chavez was elected. Upon taking power Chavez enacted bold and sweeping new laws which strengthened his control over government and its functions and he assumed total control over the state run oil company, Petroleos De Venezuela. Agents of the US government infiltrated Venezuela and worked to foment a strike of oil workers in order to destabilize the government and force people to doubt the intentions of their populist leader. The strike occurred and a coup was attempted. In fact, there were reports that Chavez had been ousted form office, but surprisingly Chavez was able to hold onto the reigns of government and quell the fears of the nation. The CIA has failed. He regained control and fired any government official that he suspected of colluding with US agents.

Perkins also watched closely throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s as the U.S. tried to get Iraq and Saddam Hussein to buy into the EHM scenario as Saudi Arabia had done before. Hussein refused and when he invaded Kuwait, the U.S. wasted little time and attacked Iraq. Perkins knows that had Saddam have been able to be bought out by the corporatocracy, and accepted their terms, he would still be in power today.
Perkins fully realized that "the United States is a nation laboring to deny the truth about its imperialist role in the world. The republic offered hope to the world. Its foundation was moral and philosophical rather than materialistic. It was based on the concepts of equality and justice for all. The global empire, on the other hand, is the republic's nemesis. It is a self-centered, self-serving, greedy, and materialistic, a system based on mercantilism. Like empires before, its arms open only to accumulate resources, to grab everything in sight and stuff its insatiable maw. It will use whatever means it deems necessary to help its rulers gain more power and riches."

Comments (1)

  1. Commentary by Rev. J. Roland Cole, 10-15-16:
    I have two responses. Regarding possible “religious prohibitions,” Mill said, “Members of the majority ought to make rules which they would accept should they have been the minority”

    This suggests an application of the Golden Rule in social ethical decision-making (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”), is similar to Kant’s categorical imperative (one decides his or her ethical action by determining if s/he could will it to become “a universal law.”), and it anticipates Religious Liberty with its freedoms from coercions re other persons, church’s, and governments’ beliefs and doctrines a-n-d its freedoms to self-expression, autonomy, conscience and the free expression of one’s conscientious beliefs, and the free exercise of one’s God-given rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights and others not so enumerated, such as the right to privacy, etc..

    My second response is a request for clarification. Whereas Utilitarianism (short-handed as “The great good or happiness for the greatest number”) contributed “laissez-faire capitalism” as its economic principle (business, not government, making the rules of the economy), J. S. Mill was quick to deny persons or groups causing real harm to others. Called “Liberalism” in its day (as opposed to the “Conservatism” of the Aristocratic rule in England at the time) and “Conservatism” in our day, calls for “free and unfettered capitalism” have long been shown to harm the health and safety of its workers and transporters, as well as the civilian population which buys its products. Hence, the need for governmental regulations.

    Is it true that J. S. modified his father, James’ and Jeremy Bentham’s original non-socialistic, “l-f capitalism” within its first 10-15 years? That this ethicist, moral philosopher, and defender of Utilitarianism recognized that governments/some agencies have a moral and legal right AND responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of businesses’ workers and product transporters, as well as their consumers, through regulation? I’ve been taught this and have asserted it, but I’ve not seen the footnotes. Can you clarify this issue for us? (Can anybody? Please inform here and at: colejr78@gmail.com.) Thanks!

Post a Comment