John McCain, John Shimkus and Corporate Liberalism

Matthew Raphael Johnson

There is nothing more horrifying than the idea of a John McCain presidency. However, given the complaints issued against George W. Bush from the European Bildebergers, there is no chance of this happening. The Bildeberg group is an informal gathering of the world’s elites. The membership list, that is, those who have been invited to these super-elite meetings, has been captured (usually by bribing underpaid maids) by my friend, Jim Tucker. These meetings take place in often secluded areas, under heavy guard.

The meeting I tried to (unsuccessfully) infiltrate took place in Chantilly Virginia, in 2002 and was attended, by among other luminaries, Paul Allaire, head of Xerox, media mogul Conrad Black, Wall Street Journal editorialist Paul Gigot, Donald Rumsfeld, major figures in both American and English major parties, Lilia Shevtsova, the “Russian analyst” from Carnegie, George Soros, Jim Hoagland, editor of the Post, and about 150 other major elites figures in academia, media, banking and government from every continent. They meet every year to plan policy, to choose trends for other elites to follow, and to show, in a way, where the “smart money” in social life is going. It is the Regime, in the way I have always used the term, and with a global reach.

These elites, in subsequent meetings (2003, Versailles, 2004, Stresa, Italy, 2005, Rottach-Egern, Germany) have called for the following platform: the defeat of nationalism, a single stock exchange, a global tax on oil, vague anti-Putinism, and, significantly, an attack on Bush’s Iraq policy. Apparently, European elites are angry with American “unilateralism.” Clearly, therefore, the fix is in for the Democratic faction of the Regime to win in America, thus, politically, providing a “cooling off” period for the world, and to satisfy agitated European elites, led by Soros. However, this is not what the McCain candidacy is about.

In essence, the campaign of McCain centers around a mission of propaganda, some sort of traveling circus supporting the Bush/Neocon position on Iraq and calling for more troops into that quagmire. As always, it is not candidates that matter, but the private capital that controls the system, and whose masters the world over constitute the Regime, as I have been using the term throughout my career.

However, it might be instructive to deal with McCain as a man. My sources for McCain derive from 5 years on Capitol Hill as a reporter and activist. Many conversations at the Hawk and Dove, my favorite Hill hangout, filled in many details about McCain not known by the general public. First, he has either privately or publicly, called for the invasion of precisely every country he has a policy issue with. He has called for an American invasion of Russia, Serbia, Syria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. Some have claimed also Nigeria, Venezuela and Cuba, though I have never received any verification of that. Many of his former staffers, off the record, in my presence, have given details of his temper tantrums: the cursing, foaming, and acts of physical violence directed against inanimate objects in his office. However, in this matter, I do not judge, as he was tortured by the communists of Vietnam, and his mind was obviously affected. It is occasionally mentioned by Russian emigres that McCain likely had a Soviet interrogator, given that he was an officer, which might likely account for his often violent and subrational hatred for Slavdom.

William Blum writes,

John McCain, who is proud to have dropped countless bombs on the people of Vietnam, who had never done him or his country any harm until he and his country invaded them, who now (literally) sings in public about bombing the people of Iran, and who tells us he's prepared to remain in Iraq for 100 years, is still regarded as "not tough enough" by 16 per cent and "too tough" by only 25 per cent. What does it take to convince Americans that one of their leaders is a bloody psychopath? Like the two psychos he may replace. How has 225 years of our grand experiment in democracy wound up like this? And why is McCain regularly referred to as a "war hero"? He was shot down and captured and held prisoner for more than five years. What's heroic about that? In most other kinds of work, such a record would be called a failure.

Winston Churchill said that "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." And if that doesn't do it for you, try a five-minute conversation with almost any American politician. This thing called democracy continues to be used as a substitute for human liberation.

However, it remains the case that McCain’s presidential run has received money from some intriguing sources, sources often mentioned on the roster’s of Bildeberg meetings. It must be kept in mind, however, that even under the strict FEC guidelines for reporting, many groups use multiple names and deliberately use deceptive names. Here is just a tiny smattering of his funders, and a look into who else McCain’s corporate supporters are funding:

Again, as I’ve said many times, there is no ideology in the corporate world. They fund both “sides” of the political divide, proving that, ultimately, all political power is corporate, the left and “right” are identical, as being created/funded from the same source, and that “debate” is phony and contrived. Liberalism in America is corporate controlled, and every major corporate foundation gives lavishly to leftist groups and fronts. Therefore, the Regime comprises both liberal and conservative factions of American politics, using conservatives for “free market initatives,” while using liberals for their “social policy.” The Regime demands international intervention, appealing to the liberals to fight “against nationalism,” such as in Serbia, while appealing to conservatives to “fight terrorism,” such as in Central Asia.

When corporate giving is analyzed from primary source documentation (i.e. the public disclosures all foundations must make according to federal law), a single pattern stands out, with very few exceptions: corporations give to leftist groups on social issues (feminism, race, abortion, etc.), while giving to libertarian “free market” groups when it comes to economics. It remains true, however, that corporate giving also provides funds for leftist groups such as certain environmentalists who demand closer regulation of corporate life, so even this latter notion is partially vitiated. I strongly recommend that my readers visit www.capitalresearch.org, and search the database for yourself.

The above figures show the fraud of modern “parliamentarism” and “liberalism.” It is proof that the Regime uses words like “democracy” solely as a cover for their financial activities. It is proof of the regime’s existence, as well as its political preferences. It is proof that conservatives are stupid people, too lazy to dig into the sources of funding for the groups they claim to dislike, and the politics of the companies they support ideologically through the mantra of “the free market.”

*******

The Conservative Republican establishment is mad, mad at me. I've been told that Congressman Shimkus has sent a few of his stooges out to blogosphere to attack me. Note to Shimkus and your cowardly neo-con lick-spittles: I will not permit you to “call me out.” Did Mike Tyson fight every 90 lb. punk that called him names? He fought only his equals, and that under strict conditions. Your flunkies are cowards and phonies, and I have more scholarly integrity in one hangnail than the entire neo-con establishment in D.C. has in their entire careers. I will not engage in your corrupt Beltway games, because, quite frankly, I’m above them.

The increasing violence and arrogance of the Regime is directly correlated to its insecurity. For all its ranting about its successes and, of course, its “inevitability,” the Regime is facing some very difficult times. Overwhelming debt, a lost war in Iraq, outsourcing of some of its more satisfying jobs, alienation of rural areas, increasing fuel princes, and substantial foreign competition from the developing India-China-Russia axis, the Regime, like a spoiled child, lashes out in hatred.

The latest attack comes from a Congressman who I had not heard of until now, The Hon. John Shimkus (R-IL). He has come to my attention due to an outburst on the floor of the House, condemning Belarus. Reading from a prepared script, he condemned Belarus for “violating democracy,” etc. etc., everyone knows the drill. Shimkus also sits on something called the “Congressional Baltic Caucus,” something else I had not known of until now, but it normally is merely another corporate controlled arena of anti-Russian agitation. As it turns out, Shimkus has made Belarus a major part of his legislative agenda, sponsoring and co-sponsoring numerous “resolutions” condemning Belarus for some “crime” or other. (See here for a few speeches).

Here are a few excerpts from some of his press releases over the last few years:

Unfortunately, just today we have received word of potential harassment of opposition activists by the government, For the people of Belarus, I pray for the success of the “denim revolution.” (2006)

And this from a man who cheered the passage of the Patriot act and wishes to make it stronger.

Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-19) introduced House Resolution 673 "expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair presidential election on March 19, 2006.

Shimkus is a very good case study of legislative mismanagement. Why would an obscure congressman worry so much about a country the size of Kansas, a country that, in no conceivable respect, poses a threat to the U.S? Let’s take a look.

Shimkus is supported by a few telling organizations, led by Abbott Laboratories, the drug giant based in Illinois, and nearly every other major drug manufacturer. It might be of interest that the below list of corporate donors shows a heavy amount of Bildeberg attendees. As always, it is an amaglam of corporate media, chemical and manufacturing interests. Also controlling his candidacy are the following corporations, the list itself is telling, and is provided by the disclosures of his campaign filed at the Federal Election Commission:

Proving that Congressmen are financed by international corporations for the creation of a New Global Order is easy. Showing specific patterns, that is, connecting campaign donations to actual voting and speechmaking behavior is another matter. The above list, however is fairly self-explanatory, and is just a small sampling of corporate America that controls this hapless frontman. The above companies, however, have provided for the majority of Shimkus’ funds, and the companies and fronts listed above have given very large donations individually.

The above list of corporate interest is telling in that most of them are in direct economic competition with Russian interests. The top-heavy list of energy suppliers is telling enough, and the sugar interests are certainly curious, but rather obvious in that Russia grows beets in large quantities, from which one can process sugar, one easily competitive with American interests in Hawaii and Florida. The rest have a specific interests in penetrating and controlling the Russian market. Russia has a hard working population of well educated people, and also have a strong scientific and technological bent. Therefore, it makes sense that many communications and tech outfits finance the Republicans, and the republicans obediently condemn Russian “human rights abuses.” Grumman and Boeing are also significant in that they are in direct competition with the high tech sector in Russia, both military and civilian.

The point of this is not merely to show that Shimkus is indeed being paid to say what he says, or that all politicians in liberal democracies are puppets, and not even that he is controlled by energy interests (which he clearly is). More importantly, it proves that, by and large, the opinions of Shimkus, and those like him, are not his own, but are fed to him by the large PR organizations connected with corporate finance that have a direct interest in Russian and Belorussian life.

But there is more. Right around the time Shimkus made his House speech on Belarus’ “crimes,” several international agencies released their data on Belorussian life in 2006. The timing here is unmistakable. Some figures:

Socio-economic development of Belarus in 2006 demonstrated positive dynamics on virtually all most important parameters, thus proving the effectiveness of the socio-economic model chosen by the leadership of Belarus.

In comparison with 2005:

Gross domestic product grew 9.9 percent in Belarus as against 2005, which is, according to the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects 2007 report, places Belarus among the most dynamically developing states of the world. In particular, in terms of GDP growth Belarus ranks 7th in the world (after Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia, Estonia, China and Kazakhstan).

Industrial production rose 11.3 percent. According to the Interstate Statistical Committee of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Belarus in terms of industrial production growth passed most of CIS states except Azerbaijan (36.6 percent).

Agricultural production rose 6.1 percent, which is much higher than the average level in CIS states (3 percent), and might have something to do with ADM and ConAgra heavily financing Shimkus and others who are anti-Belarus.

Consumer goods production increased by 10.5 per cent

The Embassy of Belarus in America writes: “Capital investments grew 31.4 percent. According to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2006, as of the end of 2005 Belarus was 10th among 19 countries of the South-Eastern Europe and CIS in terms of the level of direct foreign investments, and 4th among CIS countries (after Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan). In the report, Belarus is placed in the category of countries with high potential for attracting direct foreign investments, leading over most of the countries of South-Eastern Europe and CIS.”

Here’s a major reason why the Regime hates Lukashenko: Foreign trade grew 28.7 percent, including the growth of exports by 23.5 percent, as well as foreign trade in services, which saw a growth of 15.5 percent. Positive balance in the trade of services exceeded $1 billion. In other words, the pious condemnations of Belarus are just that. It does not stop many European firms from doing business with one of the healthiest economies in the developing world.

Unemployment still holds at just over 1% according to the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects Report. According to the same agency, real income grew 17.3%. According to the World Economic Forum Report of 2006, Belarus has the lowest infant mortality rate in the CIS. According to the World Bank, Belarus has one of the best records in combating corporate corruption.

And this is just a smattering of the major achievements of the Belorussian nation and President Lukashenko, all catalogued by overwhelmingly hostile sources. Now, who would this be problem for the likes of Shimkus?

First of all, Belarus is not part of the global trading system in any official capacity. The Regime has done all in its power to harm Belarus, from threats to attempted sanctions, to an endless propaganda barrage directed against her. “Liberals condemn her for her for “human rights” abuses, while conservatives condemn her for not supporting the “rule of law,” or “free enterprise.” Again, identical policies, different reasons, same sources of funding. Belarus continues, by any standard, to prosper. Secondly, Belarus shows the prosperity that can be gained through regional, rather than global cooperation (in this case, with Russia). Belarus has proven that it does not need the global system, as has Malaysia and Venezuela, both regular targets from Republicans in Congress.

Thirdly, Belarus has proven that a strong state, in the case of a small country besieged by the powerful west, can control corruption and provide basic services better than western style systems. While Belarus has free elections and a very diverse media, presidential powers are substantially strong, a strength born out of necessity, to prevent the financial and economic meltdown suffered by Russia during the reign of the recently deceased Yeltsin. Belarus has prevented western economic penetration, IMF dictates and global economists from running the country, and as a result, she prospers. This, more than anything else, leads corporate America and their frontmen to lash out regularly at Belarus.

The reality is that this corporate control, corporate liberal, leftist ideology proven by their donations, makes a mockery out of the pious slogans of “liberal democracy” and “the open society.” Such a society merely makes it possible for those with the most money to indulge their interests and desires with impunity. There is no distinction between republican and democrat when their funding sources are considered, which, in academic political science, is rarely done. This is mainly because academic political science is controlled by the same foundations and interests. Only power matters. Liberals and Conservatives both have their reasons for being, and it is to support different aspects of the broader Regime’s policies. Corporate America has spent a large amount of money to cultivate the reputation as being “conservative” interests, while hiding their true liberal agenda. If one lives in corporate controlled regions such as Fairfax County Virginia, one sees the moral corruption of corporate life: drug use, wife swapping, abortion, litigiousness, divorce and child abuse/neglect are rife among the upper classes in such regions. These are the fruits of the “open society” and the corporate, liberal interests that define what “openness” means.

back