@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997
Sender: •••@••.••• (James Tsao)
Subject: Re: cj#655> China & KulturKampf: some predictions
In response to Richard K. Moore's posting on China and KulturKampf, I'm
curious as to if this scenario does play out, what his predictions on the
economic outcomes are, and whether these actions would have any actual value
given the global economic breakdown that will ensue.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear James,
I'm not sure why you foresee a global economic breakdown based on the
assumption of a Desert-Storm style blitzkrieg attack by USA on China. I
would welcome your thinking behind such a prediction.
Such an attack would be a horrendous atrocity in terms of human suffering,
but if US weapons systems development are sufficient to provide
control-of-theater in terms of strategic weapons, airpower, and
communications, the damage would be "localized" to China - as damage in
Desert Storm was localized to Iraq.
Economically, if the Iraq precedent holds, I'd assume the primary
disruption would be also localized - with transport, irrigation, water
supplies, power, communications, and storage systems in China largely
destroyed. This would be far more devestating than any disruptions caused
(internally or externally) by interruption of imports and exports. As has
occurred in Iraq, large-scale starvation and disease would be a major
problem - a problem even more difficult to alleviate (even with a massive
influx of "humanitarian aid") given China's immense scale, and the huge
to-city migration that has been occurring in recent years.
Without implying that this would balance the suffering - it wouldn't - I
believe the long range global economic consequences would be seen by
Western globalist planners as "positive". They would presumably anticipate
a massive and profitable rebuilding project - as occurred in Germany and
Japan following WW II. Foreign investments would pour in to a Chinese
society re-engineered along Western lines, aligned with globalist policies,
and under US tutelage. Such planners, heartless as they are, probably
figure China has too many people anyway, and a few less would be a good
thing.
It's a grim prospect for humanity, and I wish the indications were otherwise.
Yours,
Richard
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997
From: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: a footnote on finances [re: cj#656]
A few notes on your comments about financing:
[1] - I find it unsurprising that right-wing think tanks like the Heritage
Foundation were created and funded by right-wing millionaires like Adolph
Coors. What did you expect, widows and orphans? `Left-wing' think tanks
are funded by `left-wing' millionaires But left-wing millionaires are
like the backside of your right hand. Which is why we get think tanks
like the Brookings Institution. _Real_ left-wing think tanks are
perennially broke.
[2] - Your vision of the CIA drumming up off-book funds for off-book agents by
predicting moves on the stock market sounds really far out, paranoid
(come on, these guys are such wizards they can outfox the market as well
as subverting the world?) -- except that a few weeks ago an acquaintance
of mine who has spent his life in the Agency said exactly the same thing.
[3] - My concern with the possible secret funding of publications like The
Public Interest and Foreign Policy -- and who knows how many works of
supposedly objective scholarship -- is that the well of public debate, and
even of historical research, is being poisoned or at least polluted by
infusions from shrouded sources with agendas of their own. But I guess
you will find that unsurprising too.
- Charles -
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Charles,
re [1] - No it's not surprising, and I assumed when you asked where the
funding was coming from that it was a rhetorical question - but it seemed
worth discussing explicitly.
re [2] - I'm quite serious about the possibility of using market swings to
finance "off-book agents" - but it's not a matter of outfoxing the market,
it's much simpler than that. I described it as "using insider
information".
There are mega-scale transactions being prepared all the time, such
as major mergers and aquisitions, major profit-taking sales of securities
by institutional investors, etc. It is only necessary for the CIA to gain
advance knowledge of such a planned transaction and communicate same to
favored parties (who can then buy leveraged secondary instruments and
multiply their money in the swing). Recruiting agents in brokerage houses
to watch for such upcoming transactions would be a covert task or the most
elementary order.
This scenario would be obvious, I presume, to your acquaintance who
spent his life in the Agency. The scenario is not qualitatively different
than Reagan using knowledge of location plans for UC Irvine to multiply his
money with land investments.
re [3] - "Polluting the well of public debate" is not a side-effect of the
secret funding - it's the primary mission. One of the easiest places to
see this process in action is on PBS political panel shows, which are
frequently packed by "experts" from right-wing think-tanks.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 Wexford, Ireland
Cyberlib: ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib | (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
* Please Cc: •••@••.••• directly on forwards & replies *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: