The billionaire Koch brothers’ war against Obama
Jane Mayer - August 30, 2010
On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.
The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.
One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.
Tags: Koch, Libertarians, Tea Party
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
September 20th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Good to see you covering this story Terry. Only came across this myself just over a week ago. The Kochs very likely foundational role in the formation of the Tea Party movement, the possible origin of the whole Obama communist/Mulsim meme, and the far right-wing minarchist political philosophies that underscore so much of current conspiracy theory content could then, in all likelihood, be traced back to the Kochs as the source.
I’m wondering if places like Prison Planet and the other mainstays of conspiracy hysteria will pick this one up.
I don’t think so. But if they do it’ll most likely be an attack on this is left-wing, anti-Tea Party propaganda.
Which actually leads me to my next point, which is always to consider the source of the information (though it doesn’t necessarily invalidate it, some of what the Koch’s think-tanks produce is apparently well balanced and truthful at times) and to follow the money.
The true genesis of the story in the New Yorker by Mayer is almost certainly the liberal blog Think Progress, who have been hammering away at the Kochs for some time now. Think Progress is, surprise, surprise, expressly pro-Obama, and was set up for that purpose as a public relations organ for the Center for American Progress; a think-tank modelled on the success of the various conservative examples of the previous decades, and was begun by the former head of of the Obama presidential transition team John D, Podesta:
‘2009 - Messaging for Obama
“The Center for American Progress — which has emerged as perhaps Washington’s most influential idea factory in the age of Obama — is launching a major new war room, to be staffed by nearly a dozen people, that will focus on driving the White House’s message and agenda, I’m told. … The new war room - which is called Progressive Media - represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars. The goal of the war room will be to do hard-hitting research that boils down complex policy questions into usable talking points and narratives that play well in the media and build public support for the White House’s policy goals. … The war room - a joint project of CAP Action Fund and Media Matters Action Network — will be headed by well-known liberal operative Tara McGuinness, who worked on John Kerry’s presidential campaign and was a major player in the anti-war movement during the Bush years.”
Jennifer Palmieri is the project’s communications director.[3]‘
George Soros is a major funder of the Center for American Progress.
The mose I see of this story the more I view it as a genuine war between two opposing elite camps, and political philosophies, using the means readily at their disposal, foundationsm, think-tanks, public relations, towards their own private gain.
The more elements in the conspiracy community say that there is a single, homogenous, and unified power elite the more I doubt it.
This story is quite fascinating as regards propaganda, Bernay’s ghost inhabits the media landscape still.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Thanks. Following the money should be the first step, however one should strive to uncover the motivation, common ground, and degree of interlock among the elite. The Overclass at the head of transnational conglomerates, foundations and think-tanks, have a lot in common. And at that level, ideological differences are minuscule compared to, say, profit, or even worse - geopolitical reorganization of the globe.
Ideological wars are played out in the realm of the common man, at the behest and end game of the string pullers. I look at it as power play as well, but philosophical beliefs are merely a means to an end. They still get together and break bread at Bilderberg - or, perhaps something even more secret than that, of which all of us mere mortals are clueless.
September 20th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Yes, my mind is still open to any overarching endgame, but following the money is, as you say, only a first step in my current hobbyhorse investigations into this story. See what develops from there. It being far more than a powerplay I will probably never discover, but this may indeed be a most intriguing line of research.
At the moment though what really worries me is these things are indeed merely down to profit motives and personal powerplays grandly carried out on a mythic scale, with geopolitical reorganization almost being an afterthought and the chaotic detritus of egomanical titans battling it out.
September 20th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
As I was replying to your comment, a recent description of Hegel I had read only yesterday was on my mind. Check it out: “Some thoughts on Hegel.” Quite revealing. Especially the ubiquitousness of his theories underpinning nearly everything, and that the “nature of dialectic is movement from conflict to resolution of conflict and from resolution of conflict to conflict.” I also had had this on my mind: “The Secret War Against the New Age: The Eternal Dialectic.” And just now, I happened to look at the ads that Google had deemed relevant for this particular post. One was a direct link to Koch industries itself. And, while there, I noticed that they in turn had a link to this: “New Yorker’s Koch Profile Misses The Point..”
Excerpt:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for the Hegel link. I can see the argument that guy is making. I’ll have to make a serious effort to read Hegel properly some time, but I’m not looking forward to it. Chris Knowles’ post I read earlier, the role of constant conflict reminds me of the notions the xGW crew have on the next generation of warfare (if the generational model holds water), 5GW; of invisible warfare where the civilian and non-civilian are indivisible and those who are able to deal with the chaos operate hidden in the static, camouflaged by the constant conflict generated to such a degree that indentifying the players, or even that there are any, is well nigh impossible.
The thing is though when I refer to profits being perhaps a prime and central motivator wouldn’t preclude such a scenario. The profits, being more than economic alone, are so well served by a world of constant conflict where geopolitical powerplays interwoven with preparation for the insertion of corporations post-conflict (as we see in Iraq), and war seems to be the greatest tool for such gains known to man, allied to the masive profits made through war itself when ongoing.
And you could still have elite factions who meet at the same round tables on high with smiles, yet holding the knives behind their backs ready.
From that article you quoted on Charles Koch I can fully believe the following:
“And anybody who’s spent time talking to Charles Koch, as I have, comes away with the conviction that with this man, business is personal and the personal is political.”
September 20th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
And if ideas on such things as 5GW are correct then the state of constant conflict would almost certainly equal profits in the public relations war, as regards the general public: keeping the masses pliable, in a state of flux, ever ready to be pressed into consuming whatever product, idea, or plan of action is presented.
I rememer seeing a documentary the other day and a quote from George Kreel about maintaining Joe Q. Public as “one seething white hot mass instinct.”
September 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Controlled opposition. If indeed they believe in the applicability of Hegelian theory, it seems the only viable way to proceed.
Check this out: “The Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) Shari`ah Financing and the coming Ummah.” The recent Muslim backlash as well, coupled with a more serious antagonism.
What the synthesis (and new thesis/antithesis) of the Clash of Civilizations will ultimately be, who knows? But it ain’t getting any better any time soon.
September 21st, 2010 at 4:27 am
Thanks for the links. Interesting they’re using 5GW in the specific context, it would fit very well of course. The Islamaphobic vibe is particularly pronounced and on the increase over this side of the pond now too, mirroring, to a lesser degree, all that “Ground Zero Mosque” noise.
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I seem to remember speculation by the Collins bros that the anti-big fed, state’s rights movement, so promoted by Alex Jones, Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin, is potentially, yet another segue into some form of global government, as 50 decentralized states would, in theory, be easier to absorb into an all powerful N.W.O. than one strong nation state. Personally, I don’t think this is the intent of Jones, Griffin or Paul but perhaps some hidden puppet master like Koch could be at work. Who knows.
September 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
It would be interesting to see what Ron Paul has to say about the Koch brothers specifically, given his recent swipe at the “Tea Party” and his former days within the Kochtopus orbit (”as chairman of [Koch's] Citizens for a Sound Economy”).
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Interesting article. Now I see why Paul didn’t run as a Libertarian Party candidate. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that at least one Cato institute member wrote in support of the anthropogenic global warming thesis (though he may have been a renegade member). It all makes you wonder. As you say “follow the money” I guess.
October 17th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Regarding a previous link from Terry on Hegel and the dialectic the following article has some interesting comment concerning the Christian anarchist philosopher Jacques Ellul:
Technological Pessimism - Robert A. Wauzzinski
Quote:
“Technological Determinism?
May we conclude from this discussion that Ellul is a technological determinist? I have believed so, because he argues so strongly and convincingly for technique’s totalitarian effects. His views do not seem to allow any room for freedom in our lives as a consequence of technique. I have come to see, however, that this charge of determinism is superficial. This was made clear to me as I read Ellul’s theological works, with their different presuppositions. In this section on ethics and theology we will listen to the other half of Ellul speak. This aspect is no less important than his sociological side, the facet of his work we have just covered. Taken together, the two concepts form the foundation of Ellul’s thought.
I would argue, in agreement with D. J. Wenneman, that Ellul’s essential “method” is dialectical in character. It may be remembered that in Marx’s thought we find a dialectical method of interpreting history. Accordingly, two contradictory forces (the revolutionary class-created thesis/antithesis) form the dynamic of history. Ellul also makes use of a dialectical method of interpreting history, though his is not of an economic nature. Ellul’s essential dialectic revolves around “two totalities”: that is, two mutually exclusive, all-encompassing ways of thinking.
From the beginning my thinking revolved chiefly around the contradiction between the evolution of the modern world and the Biblical content of revelation.
This “evolution” Ellul speaks of is best portrayed by the thought of Karl Marx. Thus, methodological Marxism and Christianity are the two totality ethics that together and in contradiction form the basis of Ellul’s thought.
I realize that Christianity was a totality implying an ethic in all areas, and that Marxism too claimed to be a totality. I was sometimes torn between two extremes, and sometimes reconciled; but I absolutely refuse to abandon either one. I lived my entire intellectual life in this manner. It was thus that I was progressively lead to develop a mode of dialectical thinking which I constantly made my foundation.
The contradiction between methodological Marxism and Christianity may be expressed as follows. Marxism is materialistic, dialectical, prone to determinism, and holds autonomy as an important human virtue. On the other hand, Christianity incorporates the goodness of the material world into a more holistic picture, is more decentralized, less myopic, and is heteronomous in nature.
Ellul makes no attempt to synthesize these two contradictory ethics. Indeed, to do so, say in the form of a “Christian” world view, would be to create an ideology or another totalitarian method of control. Contradiction is a must. Contradiction produces tension. Tension is necessary because it produces action, an action that addresses technique’s problem. We have the opportunity to address this tension because (and this is key) we are capable of responsible free decision. It is an existential, authentic human encounter with technical reality that necessitates a free decision.
What does all of this philosophy have to do with technique?
It is by developing this dialectic that Ellul is able to carry out his task of relocating humankind within the modern technological universe. What is lacking in such a universe is precisely that openness that allows for the historical development of the free subject. For technique, in Ellul’s view, represents a closed world. Its development is completely mechanical. Its results are completely predictable. Ellul’s dialectic itself introduces a certain negativity and thus unpredictability into this technical system. It represents a negation of technique.
The last phrase, “negation of technique,” is the signal for yet another contour of Ellul’s basic dialectic. Ellul’s system of thought fundamentally consists of technical necessity on one hand, and the possibilities of human freedom on the other hand, freedom being an absolutely essential condition for human existence. Ellul sees the human spirit, longing to be free, arising like an unstoppable force against the immovable object of the technological necessity.
Ellul believes the gospel, the truth of Christian revelation, must confront the known sociological world that is dominated by technique. The gospel that confronts the sociological world dominated by technique is an alien truth to this world, but is capable in some unfathomable way of contradicting the way of servitude. This way of contradiction, however, is rarely if ever realized in human history.
Thus, there exists a profound dialectic in Ellul’s thought: the existential, theological need to be free is pitted against the sociological, technological necessity of a technological society.
A second dialectic also exists. The sociological side of Ellul views the world through the glasses of empirical, evolutionary reality. Accordingly, the visible, verifiable, measurable way of seeing reality comes to the foreground. On the other hand, Ellul also views reality as a theologian. Faith, the grip of Divine revelation, extra-material reality are the dominant presuppositions to this way of thinking. Taken together, though never synthesized, the principles of empirical vs. transcendent reality form the second dialectic in Ellul’s thought. Faith vs. empirical seeing, evolution vs. unfolding, verifiability vs. faith in the unseen, and sociological facts vs. theological beliefs form the second dialectic in Ellul’s thought. Again, no synthesis is allowed.“