• BC
    13.2k
    DARK MONEY The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer, 2016. The book is an eye opener, and per William S. Burroughs, "Sometimes paranoia's just having the facts," may leave you feeling queasy and uneasy.

    Fred Chase Koch, father of the Koch brothers about whom we hear so much, got his fortune in oil rolling by building oil refineries first for the Soviets, and a bit later for the Nazis. Hitler personally approved the contract for Fred Koch's very large refinery in Hamburg which would deliver high octane fuel for the Luftwaffe. He admired the vigor of the Axis powers as they tooled up for war, and lamented about his own country, "...perhaps this course of idleness, feeding at the public trough, dependence on government, etc. with which we are afflicted is not permanent and can be overcome."

    Fred had 4 sons - Freddie, Charles, and a pair of twins David and William (born 1940). He also had a daughter, Mary. Fred Chase Koch was a authoritarian and brutal disciplinarian and visited both his own harsh childhood and his diseased politics upon his children. Freddie, who was early on an outlier escaped much of this. Freddie turned out to be gay and kept his distance from this family once he was in a position to do so.

    The Koch family were aggressive capitalists and right wing zealots, all. Charles Koch dominated his brothers from the beginning and dominated the company. They actively sought methods of influencing American politics, and tried various approaches -- all of them involving big money, and covert action. They seem to have perceived that a straight-forward assault would not go over well. Better to obscure what it was they were doing, and intended to do, behind a screen of meaningless names and titles.

    The Koch brothers spent big in political philanthropy, partly as a tax maneuver. The Koch children's trusts required philanthropy to avoid taxation -- so they planted a lot of right-wing gardens. They funded think tanks like the Cato Institute, organizations such as the John Birch Society and the Libertarian Party.

    Their view of government was simple: protect private property. The rest of it -- medicare, medicaid, social security, the CIA, FBI, SEC, FDA, public education, child labor laws, minimum wage -- just about everything passed since the late 19th century could be flushed down the drain.

    So far, great book.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Ask me and they're doing a great thing. Protecting private property :P
  • BC
    13.2k
    I heard once, probably a PBS history program, had not Benjamin Franklin suggested "happiness" the phrase in the DOI would have been "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property" which Jefferson had supplied from Locke.

    And Franklin didn't mean exactly what we mean by happiness either. They were looking for a word that would resonate properly on both sides of the Atlantic, in Boston and in London. And property mean more than just land -- it meant at the time the means of making a living -- a plantation with slaves on one end of the continuum, and a tradesman's tools on the other end, maybe a horse and wagon. So, life, liberty and the means to support yourself.

    ↪Bitter Crank Ask me and they're doing a great thing. Protecting private property :PAgustino

    So Agustino, what do you think of the Koch Brothers?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    I don't know enough about them to approve or disapprove. But from the text you have posted, after I eliminate the author's bias (ex aggressive capitalists and right-wing zealots, or authoritarian and brutal disciplinarian, etc.), there doesn't seem much to object to. Some people who had the means to make a lot of money by taking their father's business, go about and do it, and then use their money to protect certain interests they believe in in the government. In their place, I would've done the same probably. In fact, I find something to admire... the fact that they could do this and pull it off. Many would wish they could influence government, but do not know how to go about it.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Jane Mayer's approach, or bias, is clear. She is doing investigative reporting and she doesn't find her subjects attractive--but not because they were aggressive capitalists. They were "aggressive" in the sense of 'hustle'. They expanded the core business prudently and made a lot of money in an industry (oil) that has been lucrative for quite a few people. They were (are) zealous in pursuit of their ideals -- again, not an inherently bad trait. The Koch children were subject to what most people would consider 'harsh' discipline by a father who was an authoritarian. He was pretty up-front about that, apparently.

    The Koches were multigenerational libertarians, who had (have) sufficient resources to build a libertarian movement. They have preferred to pursue their goals covertly, using deceptively named front organizations under the umbrella of philanthropy. (Nothing illegal about that. It's a sensible strategy in a number of ways.)

    I don't know if you are familiar with the John Birch Society. They were most active in the late 1950s, and 1960s. They were fervently anti-communist, and tended towards conspiracy theories which struck conservatives (like William F. Buckley) as outlandish. The Koches were supporters, and funders. While there may be "respectable" anti-communist libertarians organizations, in this country they tend toward the "kooky fringe".

    Why "kooky fringe"? Organizations which have very extreme views and attract persons with the same, tend to become a bit unhinged. They exist in an echo chamber. This is true of the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Some people ... use their money to protect certain interests they believe inAgustino

    True enough.

    Take the Koch funding of climate change deniers. What's their interest? Carbon industries in general are on the defensive with respect to climate change. A large refinery south of Minneapolis was acquired some years back by Koch. Their source of crude oil is tar sand product from Canada. This refinery alone receives a large share of the oil exported from Alberta.

    The refinery itself isn't problematic, as far as I know. What is problematic is the extraction of oil from sand. It's a mining process--not a pumping operation. The sand is scooped up and heated to melt out the oil. Its environmentally about as filthy a process as one could imagine.

    At the other end of the pipeline and refining, there is a lot of residue that has low value and which is more like hazardous waste. (Quite a bit of it is sold as low grade fuel for ships.)

    That's one interest the koches have that needs protecting.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Very interesting. If you ask me, yes they should be forced to obey some more environmentally friendly practices in their business. Also, there is quite a frequent policy in many different industries to use waste material as fuel, for sustainability reasons. Throwing it away is seen as less sustainable because it is a waste of resources. But then you are right, that this will emit noxious gases into the atmosphere. But at the same time it's kind of better to use waste than to mine for more natural fuel (oil, gas, coal) don't you think?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    So I think that if you argue against the practice of the Koch brothers when it comes to selling waste, then you should really be arguing against the practices of entire industries. Cement manufacturing (which I briefly worked in) uses waste fuels (used tyres), and even waste products such as ground-granulated blastfurnace slag (which is a waste product of the manufacturing of steel) in the production of cement. Because most of the CO2 emitted is assigned to steel - 1000+ kg CO2 per ton steel produced; ground-granulated blastfurnace slag has a much lower embodied CO2 50kg/ton produced. Thus more sustainable cement is produced using ground-granulated blastfurnace slag in higher proportions than the alternative and traditional portland cement (950kg CO2/ ton). Does this feel like a cheat? Maybe - but we're producing steel anyway, might just as well make use of the waste, instead of burn more additional fuel and release much more noxious gases in the atmosphere if we don't.

    So as you can see - the discussion is more complicated than was initially suggested. (I might as well add that many journalists don't know what they're talking about and just want to make headlines rather than research adequately into such matters).
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Also - having worked in related fields. 60% of the world's CO2 is from coal energy production, 11% from natural gas energy production and 8% from cement. These are the three biggest. As you see - oil isn't even there, but yet it gets so much attention. Cement gets virtually no attention, even though it's in top 3 by industry. Coal gets far too little attention.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.3k
    Hi Agustino,

    Yes, your figures for coal (60%), gas (11%) and cement production (8%) match what I can find in the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. However fuel oil also accounts for 7.3%, while oil refineries account for 6%. So, the total for oil would be 13.3%, which would put it in second place. And then there is the issue of trends in consumption. The demand for oil might be expected to rise faster than the demand for coal in coming decades unless substitutes are found and promoted, I surmise (though I am not very knowledgeable about that).
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    So, the total for oil would be 13.3%, which would put it in second place. And then there is the issue of trends in consumption. The demand for oil might be expected to rise faster than the demand for coal in coming decades unless substitutes are found and promoted, I surmise (though I am not very knowledgeable about that).Pierre-Normand

    Refining and consumption of oil also overlap, which must be taken into account. Yes you are right - oil was fourth, even in my view. I've analysed the statistics awhile ago, but cannot find my report. So yes, it is important. Just nowhere near as significant as it's often made out to be. Oil is important - but it's importance is as a strategic political resource MUCH more than as an environmental concern. Coal burning on the other hand is the prime environmental concern that we should be having. China is burning most of the world's coal as well.

    The demand for oil might be expected to rise faster than the demand for coal in coming decades unless substitutes are found and promoted, I surmise (though I am not very knowledgeable about that).Pierre-Normand

    I have not seen much evidence for this. There's quite an opposite effect in fact. Demand for coal is growing faster than demand of oil, since it's a cheaper resource and developing (not developed) countries are more likely to exploit it. Check China out. At least it has been until recently when oil prices have fallen quite a bit.
  • BC
    13.2k
    It seems to me that something is missing from the stats on CO2. I find it difficult to believe that CO2 from petroleum isn't higher. BUT...

    The amount of CO2 that the Koch brothers are responsible for isn't a critical issue. In any case, they are not responsible for most of it. It's what they do and did with their money POLITICALLY that is significant.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Fred Koch was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Yes, Fred senior.
  • Landru Guide Us
    245
    The Kochs renew my long-standing commitment to the judicious use of the guillotine.
  • S
    11.7k
    The amount of CO2 that the Koch brothers are responsible for isn't a critical issue. In any case, they are not responsible for most of it. It's what they do and did with their money POLITICALLY that is significant.Bitter Crank

    Yes, like this prominent part of your comment:

    Take the Koch funding of climate change deniers. What's their interest? Carbon industries in general are on the defensive with respect to climate change.Bitter Crank

    ...which Augustino didn't address, but which ought to be condemned.

    The Kochs renew my long-standing commitment to the judicious use of the guillotine.Landru Guide Us

    :D
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.