Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Perkins 2

John Perkins and His Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

avatar

Economist John Perkins said, “Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. EHMs funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM.”

Other revelations by Perkins are equally impressive. According to him, in his 2004 book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” Saudi Arabia has a very special relationship with the U.S. since mid-1970s.

He says:

“The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America’s longtime ally and the world’s largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, ‘the epicenter’ of terrorist financing… Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries…”

Perkins came to get such knowledge not only because he was a respected economist, but also because of his involvement, decades ago, with NSA () and even designing massive projects in Saudi Arabia.

In the 1960s and 1970s, NSA was not internationally known, but today, because of the leaks of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, NSA’s stealthy activities comprising surveillance and espionage have been exposed. Yet, ten years before Snowden, John Perkins had already made a significant exposé, which remained largely unnoticed, because apparently no one was willing to believe that the mysterious NSA was a malignant octopus.

How did Perkins come to know NSA? In 1967 he married to a woman whose uncle was a top echelon executive at NSA. In 1968 he was profiled by the NSA as an ideal economic hit man (EHM).

He had been deliberately hired by NSA because of his non-conservative qualities and a lack of moral values. A truly conservative, moral man would never do what he was hired to do.

In 1981 he married to another woman whose father was chief architect at Bechtel Corporation and was in charge of designing and building cities in Saudi Arabia — work financed through the 1974 EHM deal.

About his NSA training, Perkins said:

First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back to MAIN and other U.S. companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and Brown & Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans (after they had paid MAIN and the other U.S. contractors, of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we needed favors, including military bases, UN votes, or access to oil and other natural resources.

My job, [NSA agent] said, was to forecast the effects of investing billions of dollars in a country. Specifically, I would produce studies that projected economic growth twenty to twenty-five years into the future and that evaluated the impacts of a variety of projects. For example, if a decision was made to lend a country $1 billion to persuade its leaders not to align with the Soviet Union, I would compare the benefits of investing that money in power plants with the benefits of investing in a new national railroad network or a telecommunications system.

Or I might be told that the country was being offered the opportunity to receive a modern electric utility system, and it would be up to me to demonstrate that such a system would result in sufficient economic growth to justify the loan. The critical factor, in every case, was gross national product. The project that resulted in the highest average annual growth of GNP won. If only one project was under consideration, I would need to demonstrate that developing it would bring superior benefits to the GNP.

The unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was that they were intended to create large profits for the contractors, and to make a handful of wealthy and influential families in the receiving countries very happy, while assuring the long-term financial dependence and therefore the political loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan, the better.

This was in the 1970s. I remembered Brazil, my country. In the 1970s, the military government in Brazil kept up massive investments in infrastructure — highways, telecommunications, hydroelectric dams, etc. The military rule, under President Ernesto Geisel, borrowed billions of dollars. Brazil was enjoying an investment boom that had pushed annual GDP growth to over ten percent. Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the Itaipu and Tucuruí hydroelectric dams, fueled growth, and Brazil emerged as the undisputed industrial leader in Latin America, earning the title “the Brazilian miracle.” But the boom fell apart. By 1982, Brazil halted payment of its main foreign debt, which is among the world’s biggest.

Brazil was apparently the perfect field for EHMs’ activities. The Brazilian military government, which made investments of billions of dollars in infrastructure, ended with loans and massive debts. And these debts had no relation with corruption, because the military government was corruption-free. Probably, in the modern history of Brazil, Brazilians never had a so corruption-free government as the military government was.

If the job of EHMs (and their colleagues) was to persuade countries to take out loans worth billions of dollars, often to pay for infrastructure projects that the EHMs themselves recommend, as John Perkins wrote in his book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” then Brazil was probably a big victim.

Like Brazil, many of the nations put into debt in the 1970s and 1980s were ruled by right-wing militarists and their debts were used by their socialist enemies as a reason to put their nations into a socialist route. The economic explorations made these military allies of the U.S. vulnerable before socialists.

The Brazilian military rule in the 1980s was plagued by inflation, recession and massive foreign debt. The International Monetary Fund was a daily subject in the Brazilian news. Socialist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who in 2002 was elected president of Brazil, agitated against the Brazilian government. His main weapon was the economic crisis, which made the Brazilian people discontent with the military presidents.

I cannot imagine the military rule in Brazil running into massive debt because of corruption. I only can imagine, by all the clues pointed by Perkins, that there is a possibility that they fell into an economic hit man’s trap.

John Perkins’ book was recommended to me by a U.S. conservative leader.

By reading his book, you see NSA and other U.S. agencies as machines of economic exploitation of nations. But often such exploitation is facilitated by political leaders of these nations who also exploited economically their own people. I do not believe that this was the case in Brazil, because the Brazilian military rule was hard-working. When socialists overthrew U.S. allies in Latin America — an overthrow facilitated by U.S. economic hit men — they themselves became exploiters, economically and also socially and religiously, because socialism severely stifles speech and religious freedom.

Perkins saw so much corruption among his professional peers in America exploiting the poor in Third-World nations that he began to see favorably socialist ideas, thinking that socialism was the only answer to the massive capitalist corruption he saw coming from his own nation.

Of course, Perkins did not know the Gospel, which is the only real answer to socialism and capitalist corruption.

The human nature is wicked. If it occupies a high post, it exploits people under its control.

People without the Gospel should be capable of not exploiting other people, because they have a conscience.

People who have the Gospel are under a double responsibility not to exploit, because they have God’s conscience available to them (the Gospel) and their own conscience.

It’s not a sin to be wealthy. But God commands the rich to be also wealthy in generosity.

Yet, socialism sees all wealth (except for the wealthy socialist establishment) as exploitation. The Bible does not see all rich as exploiters. There are rich and there are exploiters. And there are wealthy exploiters.



 

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on BarbWire.com

Send this to a friend