Part 2 of our Interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi
Posted by Joshua Price on October 22, 2007
Here is the final part of our interview with Dr. Corsi, writer for World Net Daily and author of several books, including his latest, The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada.
We would really like to thank Dr. Corsi for taking time to visit with us.
As always, please let us know what you think about the interview and any comments you might have about what Dr.Corsi had to say.
Price: I saw the comment Fox mad about extending NAFTA and talk of a regional currency. Why hasn’t more been made of that comment? Why haven’t the media picked up on it?
Dr. Corsi: Well the mainstream media is also in the same hip pocket of the multinational corporations. The multinational corporate structures own about 90% of the media today-that’s fairly alarming.
Then the dependency of the mainstream media for advertising-again from multinational corporations. This is an economic incentive to keep the theme of free trade agreements-which have nothing to do with fair trade-and globalism, which has to do with the desire of these multinational corporations to use slave labor once again.
They don’t want this agenda fully exposed to the American people because it would impact their corporate profits, while the income gap-even in the United States-between the very wealthy and the increasing numbers of the poor are become alarming. The people in the United States realize since 2000- 2005-the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 96.6% of all Americans lost real wages. Only 3.4% of the top gained-and these were largely the CEOs of the multinational corporations and the MBAs and lawyers who serve the multinational corporations.
The American public are aware of this, at a grassroots level, and they don’t think Vicente Fox’s statement is one that the Republican Party or the multinational corporations want out there. Not when the Republican Party is increasingly is in revolt against George W. Bush on sovereignty issues.
Price: Why are we seeing this increase in these globalists and internationalists, and this a move towards a European-like structure here? Is that a predominantly globalist/internationalist concept?
Dr. Corsi: Oh absolutely. The roots of this, intellectually, 30 years ago when I was a graduate student at Harvard and taking international economics courses much of this was being discussed-even at that time the economists were saying, “What is the most natural economic base for currency?” And they were saying that there needed to be unitary monitary currencies established, not by nation-states, which these economists consider incapable [inaudible]. They felt regional markets defined the most efficient structure to have a regional currency.
The multinational corporations, which have been allowed to operate in multiple states-simultaneously-are already beyond nation-states as being a meaningful definition of their business. The multinational corporations are opposed to environmental protection, worker safety regulations, product and quality control regulations. Multinational corporations find these to be just expenses, which they would just soon eliminate and have a regional base in which to operate, like North America and compete with Europe with a common currency for economic efficiency.
You know, when you look at unbridled capitalism, I mean, you can go back to Vienna mercantilism or Venice/Venetian mercantilism and you can see the same thinking that if you just let the corporations rule we’d be fine. I mean, the fundamental, core principal of human fascism-the states needed to be serving the corporate structure. When [inaudible] was doing well, Germany was doing well. And we’re back to that same kind of structure.
When the corporations are let loose to do what they want, they use slaves. I thought we fought a Civil War, at the end of which, we determined it was immoral to African-American slaves in southern agricultural businesses. We forgot about that. I guess it’s okay if we use Chinese slaves, because we can’t see them-that’s preposterous. It’s equally immoral and wrong. We shouldn’t, for the price of cheap flat screen TVs and sneakers at the Wal-Marts and K-Marts, and all of the other -Marts, just ignore that very important moral distinction.
If had not been for the labor union movement in the 1920s and 30s we probably would have suffered a communist revolution in the United States because, once again, capital was totally exploiting labor, and the labor unions demanded that labor be considered one of the constituents of capital that they compensated.
Growing up in the 50s, everybody had health insurance. It was a benefit at the job. Today, now that we have imported millions of Hispanic slaves-not paying them living wages-and the standard is Wal-Mart. You might get a job in the service industry, but good luck to be paid enough to buy the health insurance.
If we don’t see that valuing human capital, we don’t see that having fair trade is a fundamental principle of free trade, then these agreements are going to do what the classical economists predicted: they end up in huge, irreversible trade imbalances. China now has 1. 3 trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves-80% of which is in dollar assets. The dollar is depreciating, and I’m arguing depreciating on purpose. It’s part of the plan, I believe, that the Treasury is now implementing to try to make it just a slow devaluation so the dollar doesn’t collapse, and it’s not clear if that will be able to managed at this point.
Price: Finally, Dr. Corsi, we have written extensively about the Dubai Ports deal from last year, the Abu Dhabi purchase of a 20% stake in the NASDAQ, and now this much talked about merger between 3Com and a Chinese company, and it seems like those of us who are opposed these types of deals are branded as overly protectionist or anti-capitalist. Why is that? I’m certainly a capitalist, but I also understand that sometimes economics and national security have divergent interests. Why do the globalists brand us anit-capitalist?
Dr. Corsi: First of all, name-calling and insults is the last refuge of a scoundrel in an argument. We’ve known that since the days of [inaudible] and the ancient Greeks. When you get called a name it’s because the other person in the argument doesn’t have analysis, evidence, logic or argument to defeat you. They’ll call you a name so that nobody listens to what you’re saying.
To ask for fair trade does not mean you are, in a pejorative sense, a protectionist. I want aggressive international trade, but not without compromising the economy of the United States and the sovereignty of our laws.
The investment bankers are calling you a name because there’s going to be billions made by the Goldman-Sachs of the world, just putting the United States up for sale. Since they’re already beyond borders and bear no allegiance to the United States of America, their god is money. They will call anybody a name who gets in their way.
There are serious complications with the deals you mentioned. You know, if the United Arab Emirates owns 20% of NASDAQ, now are we going to settle trade disputes in NASDAQ under international law? And does the Sharia apply because the major minority owner is an Islamic country?
It’s the same with China buying 3Com and having national security secrets. We forget that China is building one of the biggest militaries in the world. We cannot lose sight of the fact that just because-you know, we’re told by the investment bankers that if we trade with China they will become our friends. Well, China will not sell our currency because it would cost them a trillion dollars. “They wouldn’t hurt the United States by destroying themselves.” Well, if China is an avowed enemy of the United States and it only costs a trillion dollars to bring the United States to its knees, it might be a bargain at the price.
It’s foolish in terms of national security and sovereignty of our laws-this is the slippery slope. By the time we’ve sold major infrastructure assets to foreigners, we’ve abandon the principle that our laws are sovereign, and that is a consequence when an international court rules against us and foreigners own the assets. We’ll be very hard-pressed to re-insert the sovereignty of our old laws.
I point out to people: sovereignty is not a murky question; it means whether or not we are going to run our own country, or whether we’ve sold our country and are now dependent upon the international capitalists and foreign laws to protect things like our First and Second Amendment, and all of our other freedoms, which not United Nations convention is going to do.
Price: Well Dr. Corsi thank you for taking time to visit with us and I hope we can do it again.
Dr. Corsi: It’s always my pleasure, and I’m honored to talk with you. I admire the work you do.