Edited

Welcome to the Capitalist Free Fire Zone, the linked videos show how
the plan of capitalizing everything is being implemented through
disaster capitalism. This concept of disaster capitalism explains why our government is being run the way it is and has been for decades. Naomi Klein says the most amazing thing to her was how the
engineers of this policy openly admit it is their plan to destroy all social programs and institute what I call a Capitalist Free Fire
Zone in America. I havent read the book ,so I dont know if she includes the bringing in of tens of millions of illegal,illiterate,poor,foreign language speaking people into this country as part of their plan, as it surely is.


The frightening thing is that the end goal appears to be SLAVERY for most of the population with a caste system and a small percentage of Masters. That is perhaps the way human civilization has function historically. In ancient Rome 1/3 of the population were slaves. In the southern US before the civil war 60 percent of the population were slaves. That was only 160 years ago.

Pure capitalism equals slavery. Humans will be commodities. Wars will be just an economic tool.



Short video :the Shock Doctrine
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film


Transcript or video of todays interview- Naomi Klein is an award-
winning journalist, the bestselling author of "No Logo" and the co-
director of "The Take." Her latest book is called "The Shock Doctrine:
The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." She joins us in the firehouse studio
for the hour.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/1411235


excerpt of transcript:
One person who understood this phenomenon early on was the famous
economist of our era, Milton Friedman. Friedman believed in a radical
vision of society in which profit and the market drive every aspect of
life, from schools to healthcare, even the army. He called for
abolishing all trade protections, deregulating all prices and
eviscerating government services.

These ideas have always been tremendously unpopular, and
understandably so. They cause waves of unemployment, send prices
soaring, and make life more precarious for millions. Unable to advance
their agenda democratically, Friedman and his disciples were drawn to
the power of shock.

NARRATION: The subject should be rudely awakened and immediately
blindfolded and handcuffed. When arrested at this time, most subjects
experience intense feelings of shock, insecurity and psychological
stress. The idea is to prevent the subject from relaxing and
recovering from shock.

NAOMI KLEIN: Friedman understood that just as prisoners are softened
up for interrogation by the shock of their capture, massive disasters
could serve to soften us up for his radical free-market crusade. He
advised politicians that immediately after a crisis, they should push
through all the painful policies at once, before people could regain
their footing. He called this method "economic shock treatment." I
call it "the shock doctrine."

Take a second look at the iconic events of our era, and behind many
you will find its logic at work. This is the secret history of the
free market. It wasn't born in freedom and democracy; it was born in
shock.


Jane Smiley

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/the-shock-doctrine_b_64306....


The Shock Doctrine

You might have read the piece in Salon the other day where John Dean
laments the passing of the Republican Party as a positive, or, even, a
non-damaging force in American life. The party he has known for forty
years, and the party he says that his friends now know, is a hateful,
entirely corrupt, and self-interested body composed of those who take
revenge and those who fear having revenge taken upon them. Every
current candidate for the presidency is "authoritarian" in an extreme
and unAmerican way that Dean thinks would have in earlier decades been
"corrected" by the political system, but the Republicans, according to
Dean, have broken the political system precisely so that it won't
correct them. Sounds like the financial markets, doesn't it?


Personally, I would have put things slightly differently. The
Republican Party now seems to work like a gang, in which the most
valued qualities in members are loyalty to the gang and the leader,
obedience to authority, and violence toward outsiders. The gang is
constantly having to prove its dominance, and so candidates for
leadership vie with one another for the most tyrannical or violent
rhetoric, rhetoric which simultaneously demonizes those who don't
accept the authority of the gang and the leader and removes all rules
and laws for the gang and the leader. No one is exempt from the wrath
of the gang. In this case, the Republican party has now separated
itself fairly clearly from the general American population, and as
Americans support it less, they come to seem to the Republicans to be
more and more the enemy. The far away enemy is one thing, in terms of
threat (think Al Qaeda, Shiites, Sunnis) but the enemy close at hand
is more threatening because their enmity is seen as a "betrayal."

I don't doubt Dean. I always thought that for a Republican, he had
something of a conscience. What amazes me is that Republicans who are
now exclaiming at what has happened to the Republican Party (and yes,
I talked to my mother this morning) didn't see this coming.
Everything, every value, that the Republicans have held up for my
lifetime as desirable has been pointing us in this direction. As I've
said before on the HuffPost, all of this is the necessary consequence
of traditional Republican values, not an accidental byproduct. Or
maybe I'll put it this way -- when you reject common humanity, value
profits above people, practice sectarian religion, feel contempt for
the choices of others, exalt wealth, conflate consumersim with
citizenship, join exclusive clubs, daily practice unkindness rather
than kindness, and develop theories, such as those of free market
capitalism, that allow you to congratulate yourself morally for
selfishness and short-sightedness, then being a gang member is in your
future.

Speaking of Free Market Capitalism, John Dean should start reading
Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine, which is being published
next week, simultaneously in the US and in Britain. As Karl Marx
pointed out, history and politics are not only psychological, they are
also material. This week, the Guardian is running not only four
excerpts from Klein's book, but also several commentaries both
disagreeing and agreeing with her thesis. Her thesis is this (and if I
am slightly inaccurate, blame me, not Naomi): In the fifties and
sixties in the US, at least two lines of thought converged. One was
about how to change people's minds without leaving marks and the other
was about what was the best way of organizing a given economy. The
first grew out of experiments in psychological torture (whoops, I mean
electrocshock therapy) run by Ewen Cameron in the late 1940s. The
theory was that patients could be rid of mental illnesses by
"regressing" them to an infantile state, attaining a "clean slate"
upon which new patterns of behavior and thought would be etched.
Cameron used both electroshock and powerful drugs to attain his clean
slate, having no actual knowledge of the chemistry of the brain or how
it works -- in other words, he was operating in accordance with a
metaphor. The result of Cameron's experiments, for the patients, was
often considerable loss of short term and even long term memory and a
subsequent lifelong feeling of "blankness" on the part of the patients
(apparently, later refinements of electroshock techniques have
mitigated these effects). In the 1950s, the CIA redirected these
techniques toward torture of political opponents, allegedly to find
out information, but really to test the techniques themselves (hello,
Jose Padilla!).

At the same time, Milton Friedman was coming up with the idea that if
only an economy could be purified of any kind of restraints on the
free market (for example labor unions or socialized medicine or
history), then the free market would be able to perfectly gauge the
value of any type of good or service, and therefore an economy would
balance itself, and, most importantly, inflation would be controlled
(also, as you can see, a metaphor, or, perhaps, an extended analogy).

According to Klein, it soon became apparent that all powerful shocks
to a system had a similar effect, whether the system was a human body
or a national body, and this was to temporarily disable the system's
defenses. The US government, the CIA, and the free market economists
began to act on this insight, to collude in larger experiments. The
first of these was the right wing coup, in Chile, led by Augusto
Pinochet, in 1973. At the time, Chile had a functioning leftish
government and economy, and the voters had already rejected Friedman's
pure free market troika: privatization of government functions, an end
to social spending, and deregulation.The new economy was dependent
upon outside investors and highly profitable to them -- let's call
that the allure of globalization. Pinochet set about instilling terror
in the population (that's the shock therapy) using death squads,
exemplary killings, and torture. Taking advantage of this, the
economists installed the new free market way of doing things within
days of the coup. But Friedman's ideas did not work -- inflation rose.
In the eighties, the Chilean government tried again, this time by
inducing a profound economic crash -- essentially impoverishing the
populace in order to bring them to heel. Ultimately, the Chilean
"miracle" (Friedman's term) did nothing for the population, but it did
enrich the top ten per cent and put 45% below the poverty line. It
turns out that as far as the economists were concerned, this was a
good thing.

The Shock Doctrine traces what the US, the CIA, the economists, the
Neocons, and the multinational corporations learned from the Chilean
experiment and subsequent ones (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Poland,
Russia, China, England) and finally makes its way to Iraq (this is a
590 page book, and the print is small). Essentially, they learned that
a small economy is easier to "regress" than a large one, that the
shock has to be brutal, and that the free market doesn't work as
Friedman said it would (automatically assigning appropriate value),
but that it sure does make a few people rich beyond their wildest
dreams, and that these people were Friedman's (and his students')
benefactors and paymasters. They also learned to lie lie lie in order
to sell what amounts to a program of inhuman greed to voters who have
other needs, wishes, and ideas.

For our purposes, the more interesting section of Klein's book is
about Iraq, where she traveled in the first year after the invasion,
and this section forms part of her series of posts at the Guardian.
She believes that the Iraq War was intended to not only steal Iraqi
oil, but also to impose a radical free market on an unwilling
populace, and that that was what was behind the installation of Bremer
as the capo of Iraqi reconstruction. She believes that, thanks to the
resistance of the Iraqis and their deep resentment at being used and
exploited by the Americans, this effort has failed. However, a
parallel effort, to shock the US economy into absolute deregulation,
privatization, and an end to social spending, has been and is
succeeding. What this amounts to is the fleecing of the American
taxpayer in order to enrich the war making industries. The byproduct,
as in Chile, is the gutting of the rule of law and the American
political system as we have known it. Why did Bush and Cheney go to
war? Well, where do they get their fortunes? The Shock Doctrine works
perfectly for them. As for that 45% below the poverty line, well, once
the globalizing manufacturers exported the well-paying US jobs, then
the globalizing financiers moved in and sold the newly impoverished
working class a few sub-prime mortgages guaranteed to take whatever
else they had. Then the financiers screamed for a bailout, and
Bernanke gave it to them. The free market, you might say, is working
perfectly now, at least according to its shock principles.

So, John Dean, stop wondering what happened to your fellow
Republicans. They embarked, knowingly in many cases, unknowingly in
some cases, with utter indifference in still other cases, upon the
destruction of the common good. They began doing this in the Cold War
and kept up with it when it turned out to benefit them economically.
Some of them did this because they were fearful and aggressive by
nature, and hurting those outside their own families and clubs felt
good, or reassuring. Some did it for money. Some did it for
"patriotism." Some did it for religion and some did it out of pure
cussedness, but they did it, and they did it over time.

Klein ends her book on a hopeful note -- in many places such as Chile
and Lebanon, the people have learned from their experiences -- they
are cannier and more resistant to the shocks administered to them by
Bushco and their own ruling classes. Having endured "Disaster
Capitalism" for several decades, they understand their own self-
interests better and aren't as easy to fool. I would like to be as
hopeful. The question, as always, with Bush and Cheney, is how far are
they willing to go? And, is anyone willing to stop them? From John
Dean's article, it doesn't sound as though it is going to be the
Republicans.


----It wont be the Democrats as they are planning to import another30 million illegal immigrants into this country which will be quite a shock, further destabilizing the political situation.------ Tweet