Dark, Shadowy and Powerful Forces in American History (Dale Tavris)
Dale Tavris -- World News Trust
July 28, 2010 -- Our political system may no longer be capable of saving the United States as we know it, since it is hard to imagine any president or Congress standing up to the powerful vested interests of the Pentagon, the secret intelligence agencies, and the military.
Many ordinary Americans speculate about the “Powers That Be” (PTB), the unelected but powerful and shadowy elite who seem to exercise influence over national and world events far more than a lot of people realize. Yet because of their shadowy nature they are very difficult to talk about with much confidence.
Despite their often minimal visibility, they seem to have their fingerprints over much of our nation’s history. Their ultimate purpose and motives can only be guessed at, but two aspects of our nation’s current condition seem to stand out above most others: 1) Rampant militarism manifested by a military budget almost equal to that of the rest of the world combined, a philosophy of perpetual war, more than 700 military bases scattered throughout all parts of the world, and imperialistic behavior and attitudes in relation to the other nations of the world; and 2) Obscenely unequal distribution of wealth.
It is getting worse. Hopefully some day soon – before it is too late – the American people will understand what is becoming of their country and demand responsible behavior from their leaders. But how do we get to that point, and what are these dark forces?
When one speaks of dark forces with tremendous influence over a powerful nation s/he is likely to be accused by the keepers of the status quo of being a “conspiracy theorist”. But the truth of the matter is that world history – and American history as well – is full of dark and powerful forces. What else could explain the myriad wars and genocides throughout human history? Of course, people are selectively likely to believe that people of their own kindare incapable of dark deeds. But they are wrong.
VAGUE ALLUSIONS TO DARK, POWERFUL AND SHADOWY FORCES
Several authors have commented upon dark shadowy forces without specifying their specific nature – probably because there are few people who understand their specific nature. For example:
Carl Boggs speculated in his book, “The Crimes of Empire – Rogue Superpower and World Domination”, on the possibility that an Obama presidency might take a “less belligerent and militaristic, more diplomatic and peaceful approach” to foreign affairs than his predecessors. After concluding that that possibility is unlikely because of Obama’s “cozy relationship with corporate and military interests”, as well as his initial behavior as president, Boggs notes that:
The notion that a single presidential election might itself reverse some 200 years of U.S. history, bringing to power a leader dedicated to a radical new course, contradicts the historical logic of American politics.
That is quite a statement, given that U.S. presidents are often referred to as “the leader of the Free World” or “the most powerful man in the world”. If a U.S. president can’t alter U.S. foreign policy towards a less belligerent and militaristic direction, then who can?
James Carroll said something very similar in “House of War – The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power”, a meticulously detailed history of the rise of American military power since World War II:
The Pentagon defines America’s reach across the world, and for countless millions that reach is choking… The Pentagon is now the dead center of an open-ended martial enterprise that no longer pretends to be defense. The world itself must be reshaped… The Pentagon has, more than ever, become a place to fear.
But why the Pentagon? Doesn’t the Pentagon report to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, who reports to the President, who is elected by the American people?
Chalmers Johnson makes a very similar point in “Nemesis – The Last Days of the American Republic”, in which he warns that American imperial overreach is likely to destroy itself as well as create catastrophic damage to the rest of the world:
Again, here is an illusion to powerful interests that dictate the fate of our country to American presidents and congresses.
SOME SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF DARK POWERFUL FORCES
Some authors have been more specific about the nature of these dark shadowy forces:
Peter Dale Scott on “Continuity of Government” (COG)
Peter Dale Scott, in his book, “The Road to 9/11 – Wealth, Empire and the future of America, discusses the Reagan administration’s plans for expanding so-called plans for “Continuity of Government” (COG).
Regarding the plan developed during the Bush II administration for widespread detention camps, known as “Endgame”:
After widespread protest from legal scholars, the plan for military detention camps was not discussed publicly further. It seems clear, however, that the camps exist and that… the authority already exists for them to be used… On February 6, 2007, homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff announced… more than $400 million to add sixty-seven hundred additional detention beds. Both the contract and the budget allocation were in partial fulfillment of an ambitious ten-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named Endgame, authorized in 2003.
John Perkins’ insider account of the corporatocracy plans to profit from the poor
John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” is best known for its shedding of light on a corrupt system (that Perkins refers to as a “multi-trillion dollar scam”) that keeps or drives billions into poverty in order to add to the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful. Much of the book’s power and legitimacy comes from the fact that, while there are many books today that discuss this corrupt system, this is one of the few, if not the only book that tells the story from the point of view of an insider who spent several years working for and benefiting from that system. Perkins notes the purpose of the system:
Naomi Klein on the alliance of state sponsored terror and corporate greed
Naomi Klein, in “The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, thoroughly explores the relationship between state-sponsored terror, corporate greed and economic “shock therapy”. Her account demonstrates many similarities to John Perkins’ story – the main difference being that Klein describes the process from the point of view of a researcher/journalist, whereas Perkins’ story is an insider’s account. They both go a long way towards explaining how Third World nations have to a very large extent been kept down by external human forces who seek to profit from the labors of the poor. It involves a process with many parallels to colonization, and is therefore often described by the adjective “Neocolonial”.
Klein’s book begins with Chile in the 1970s, where U.S. complicityin the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, had as perhaps its main goal the putting into practice of Milton Friedman’s economic theories, developed at the University of Chicago. These theories, when put into practice in several countries over more than three decades, have served primarily to increase the wealth and power of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. They represent the shock doctrine and disaster capitalism referred to in the title of Klein’s book.
James Galbraith on the “Predator State”
James K. Galbraith, in his book “The Predator State” describes the takeover of our country by financial predators, the process that made it into a predator state:
This is the predator state. It is a coalition of relentless opponents of the regulatory framework on which public purpose depends, with enterprises whose major lines of business compete with or encroach on the principal public functions of the enduring New Deal. It is a coalition, in other words, that seeks to control the state partly in order to prevent the assertion of public purpose…
AMERICAN PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO COMBAT DARK POWERFUL INTERESTS
I think it is well worth noting that the American people have from time to time elected presidents who attempted to fight these dark powerful forces. Here are some examples:
John Quincy Adams and his long fight against slavery
I think it’s fair to say that from the inception of our country until slavery was abolished in 1865, the darkest powerful force in American politics was the slavocracy. Indeed, the slave power was powerful enough to successfully demand that slavery be embedded in our Constitution, despite widespread sentiment against it and an American Declaration of Independence that declared that all men are created equal and have “inalienable rights” that clearly preclude slavery.
The story of John Quincy Adams’ courageous fight against slavery is told by William Lee Miller in his wonderful book “Arguing About Slavery – John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress”. Though Adams was passionately against slavery all his adult life (which is evident from his diary entries), he did nothing to combat it during his presidency of 1825-1829. Shortly after he was soundly defeated in his bid for reelection as president, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts, where he served from 1831 until his death at the age of 80 in 1848, during which he became the most aggressively anti-slavery Congressman in the U.S. House.
For those efforts he was showered with outpourings of abusive mail including death threats throughout much of his House career. He was warned that he could be prosecuted for inciting a slave insurrection. He also survived three attempts by the House to censure him, which he encouraged because he knew that defending himself on the House floor would provide him with his only opportunity to publicly talk about slavery. An entry from his diary in 1841 demonstrates the passion he felt about this issue:
And as he aged he tended to lose his former restraint, as shown in this reply from Adams on the House floor, in response to a man who suggested that his actions could result in a civil war:
Abraham Lincoln against imperial conquest
It has long been taboo in our country for mainstream politicians to speak out against wars once our country has entered into them – and those that do so risk being labeled as unpatriotic and un-American. Unfortunately, the progressive failure of the U.S. Congress to restrain American Presidents from going to war has contributed greatly to an imperial course for our country, from which there currently appears to be no end in sight.
Abraham Lincoln, as a first-term U.S. Representative from Illinois, was one of the first and most vocal U.S. Congresspersons to aggressively criticize an American President’s decision and motivation to invade a foreign country. David Donald, in his book “Lincoln”, describes Lincoln’s response to President James K. Polk’s request to Congress for additional funds to bring the Mexican War “to a close”:
Lincoln also attacked the constitutionality of the war:
For his efforts, Lincoln was castigated by various newspapers, warned that he “would have a fearful account to settle with the veterans when they returned from Mexico” (Lincoln was himself a veteran), and denounced for his “base, dastardly, and treasonable assault upon President Polk”.
When Lincoln was elected to the U.S. presidency in 1859, his well known anti-slavery views soon resulted in attempts to secede from the Union by 13 Southern states, which led to a Civil War, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, and the end of slavery after the South was defeated and a U.S. Congress free of Southern obstruction passed the 13th Amendment to our Constitution, almost three years after Lincoln was assassinated.
Franklin D. Roosevelt against the “Economic Royalists”
When FDR entered the presidency in 1933 he inherited the worst depression in U.S. history, brought on by the greatest income inequality that our country had ever known, following 12 years of Republican Party rule that catered to the interests of the wealthy. Because of the threat that his election posed to powerful interests, an assassination and military coup was attempted against him shortly after he assumed the presidency.
That didn’t stop him. In a 1936 speech at the Democratic National Convention Roosevelt addressed the powerful interests that had brought our country to its current sad state:
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer…
The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.
FDR knew that his economic policies were extremely threatening to powerful economic interests, whose hatred they incurred. Andhe welcomed their hatred, as demonstrated in another speech on the eve of the 1936 presidential election:
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.
FDR’s economic policies, including a 94% top marginal tax rate for the rich, set our country back on the right path, provided long lasting safety measures against economic insecurity, and resulted in the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.
Dwight Eisenhower warns us of the “Military Industrial Complex”
Perhaps Eisenhower doesn’t belong in this discussion; though he did warn us in his farewell address to the nation of powerful interests that could ruin our country, he did nothing to combat them during his presidency, or following his presidency. But at least he did warn us:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
John F. Kennedy’s quest for peace
Perhaps no president in American history made as valiant an effort as President Kennedy to change the course of American history for the better. And probably no president defied militaristic advice from his military as much as Kennedy did.
In a previous post I discussed JFK’s four refusals to let his military and CIA draw him into war with Cuba. Following the failure of the April 1961 CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs by a Cuban Expeditionary Force, Kennedy refused the advice of his military invade Cuba. In March 1962 he rejected a plan by his Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a false flag terrorist operation meant to draw the United States into a war against Cuba. In his handling of the October 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy repeatedly resisted advice from his military advisors to escalate the situation by invading Cuba. And Kennedy even had to use his own military in the spring of 1963 to put a halt to CIA-sponsored raids against Cuba.
From the start of his presidency, Kennedy was strongly advised by his military to invade Laos in order to stave off a Communist takeover. The Chief of his Joint Chiefs of Staff even suggested that he use nuclear weapons against Laos. Instead, Kennedy worked out a diplomatic solution that culminated on July 23, 1962, with his signing the “Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos.” Kennedy vigorously promoted an independent Congo, to the dismay of multinational corporations and against the advice of his military and CIA. There is good evidence that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam – again, against the very strong recommendations of his military.
Most worrisome of all from the standpoint of the Military Industrial Complex was Kennedy’s plans to end the Cold War, as strongly suggested in his peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963, in which he made far greater peace overtures towards the Soviet Union than had been made since the start of the Cold War. This was followed up six weeks later by the signing of thefirst nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Just as he repeatedly faced down his own military and CIA, so JFK faced down the corporatocracy. James Douglass, in his book, “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, explains the significance of that.
Jimmy Carter – Trying to tamper down U.S. imperialism and human rights abuses
On the campaign trail in 1976, Carter was an outspoken critic of U.S. imperialism:
Morris Berman, in his book “Dark Ages America – The Final Phases of Empire”, discusses Carter’s commitment to human rights as President:
Berman discusses the hopes engendered by Carter’s 1976 election to the Presidency and how the American people turned out not to be ready for that kind of change:
But… the Carter morality was, within two years, heavily out of step with the return to the usual public demand for a more muscular and military foreign policy… Out-of-office cold warriors closed ranks, forming organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger… Their goal – to revive the Cold War – was ultimately successful; Ronald Reagan and CIA-assisted torture in Central America were the inevitable results. And in the course of all this, a picture was formed of Jimmy Carter as weak, bungling, inept… That Carter would be perceived as weak, and presidents such as Reagan and Bush Jr. as strong, says a lot about who we are as a people…
But was Carter’s morality really out of step with the American people? Or was it rather that the PTB worked hard to get Jimmy Carter marginalized for his refusal to follow the rules – for example by making sure that the U.S. hostages being held in the U.S. embassy in Iran were not released until within five minutes of Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Carter’s successor?
COMMON DENOMINATORS
In the first two sections of this post I provided a description of various viewpoints on the dark, powerful, and shadowy forces that have put our nation on a course towards world-wide imperial domination – a course that serves the interests of a very few wealthy and powerful people, with tragic consequences to much of humanity. The various descriptions have much in common – so much so that in many cases they are probably referring to the same processes and people. Because of that, reading through all these descriptions could tend to get boring. But I believe that the fact that so many well respected authors who have studied and reported on this issue in meticulous detail came to the same general conclusion adds a great detail of credibility to that conclusion – which is why I included these similar but different accounts at the risk of being boring.
My description of former U.S. presidents who fought against these dark forces was meant to be inspiring. I am inspired by those stories because it shows that on occasion the American people can elect leaders who will stand up against the dark forces that seek to oppress us. But whether or not our current political system is now so far weighted in favor of the powerful over the rest of us – to the point where it is no longer possible to elect another Lincoln or FDR or JFK – is an open question. Of the five presidents mentioned here whom I most admire (I’m not including Eisenhower here because although he warned us of the MIC in his farewell address, he never really fought against them), only FDR fared well. The others were all one term presidents. Two were assassinated (Lincoln and Kennedy), and Carter was cheated out of a second term through a conspiracy known as the “October Surprise”. FDR escaped an assassination plot by the powerful interests whom he opposed.
This is a depressing place to end discussion on this issue. But I’ll have to end it here because this post is just getting too long. In my next post I’ll discuss the methods that are used by these dark forces to maintain their wealth and power – which includes: the infusion of vast sums of money into our political process; control of our media; secrecy; election fraud; the maintenance of a false patriotism in our country, sometimes known as the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism”; and, some darker methods. Then I’ll conclude by discussing why it is that such darkly motivated people have climbed to positions of such great power in the world.
- CreatedSunday, August 01, 2010
- Last modifiedWednesday, November 06, 2013
World Desk Activities
techxplore.com/news/2024-03-microsoft-philippine-w…
phys.org/news/2024-03-ai-replicate-odors-validatin…
medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-ai-language-insight…
techxplore.com/news/2024-03-ai-smart-bicycles.html
medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-ai-technology-clini…
techxplore.com/news/2024-03-musk-source-grok-chatb…
www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-co…
The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats | Poetry Foundation
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
Latest Stories
Electronic Frontier Foundation
- EFF Asks Oregon Supreme Court Not to Limit Fourth Amendment Rights Based on Terms of Service March 27, 2024
- Meta Oversight Board’s Latest Policy Opinion a Step in the Right Direction March 26, 2024
- Speaking Freely: Robert Ssempala March 26, 2024
- Podcast Episode: About Face (Recognition) March 26, 2024
The Intercept
- Anti-Abortion Doctors Struggle to Explain Mifepristone Harms Before Supreme Court March 27, 2024
- Iran and U.S. Wage a Shadow War Behind Gaza Conflict March 27, 2024
- Meta Refuses to Answer Questions on Gaza Censorship, Say Sens. Warren and Sanders March 26, 2024
- Government-Made Comic Books Try to Fight Election Disinformation March 25, 2024
VTDigger
- Evan Carlson: Vermont’s fight for repair freedom March 28, 2024
- Prospero B. Gogo Jr: Preventable nicotine-product-related illnesses cost Vermont money and suffering March 28, 2024
- Upper Valley residents pan post office plan to move mail sorting to Connecticut March 28, 2024
- Final Reading: Republicans criticize new tax proposals in Vermont House March 27, 2024
Mountain Times -- Central Vermont
- The Mountain Times – Volume 51, Number 13 – March 27 – April 2, 2024 March 27, 2024
- March 27, 2024
- Easter flowers: what’s in your bouquet? March 27, 2024
- Pruning fruit trees, it’s not too late March 27, 2024