--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
The Subversion of Political Activism in America
Posted on: Sep 12, 2003 - 11:40 AM by thefaceunveiled
http://www.bluepear.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=85
A Critical Analysis Of Anti-Establishment Movements In America
By Phillip Darrell Collins
Historically, a majority of anti-Establishment movements have been largely
unsuccessful. For instance, despite the efforts of the sixties
counterculture to end the Vietnam War, the Establishment managed to draw
the conflict out for several years and gain control of the lucrative drug
trade in the Golden Triangle. The same holds true for the anti-WTO
movement, which has only succeeded in vandalizing the businesses of small
shop owners. These ongoing successions of failure are the results of the
Establishment's subversive efforts and political activists' own
susceptibility to Hegelian manipulation.
The Sixties Counterculture
Romanticized by filmmakers like Oliver Stone and faithfully emulated by
Generation X, the sixties counterculture ostensibly represented an enormous
grassroots mobilization against the elite. However, in reality, the
movement was merely the integral constituent of a Hegelian dialectic
designed by the ruling class. The elite laid this dialectical snare through
the following tactics:
• The Promulgation of a Hegelian Meme - One of the weaknesses of the
sixties counterculture was its own feeble grasp of the political spectrum.
Exploiting this systemic Achilles' heel, the elite infused sixties radicals
with a meme (a virus of the mind, so-to-speak) that would guarantee the
movement's disintegration. Many of the sixties activists were recruited
from academic institutions, which have been longtime disseminators of
Establishment propaganda. On college campuses abroad, political scientists
were already rigorously promoting a Hegelian view of the political
spectrum. According to this dialectical framework, the political spectrum
could be conceived of as straight line with fascism occupying the far right
pole and communism occupying the far left pole. Nestled comfortably in
between these two polar extremes was the American system.
Communism ——— American system ——— Fascism
This spectrum was patently false. Where was there room for the absence of
government (anarchy) on this spectrum? Why did Americanism, which is
predicated upon limited government and individual liberties, find itself
sandwiched between two totalitarian systems? Clearly, this spectrum was
disproportionate with reality. In truth, the spectrum drew itself out like
this:
Communism —Fascism —American system--- Anarchy
Communism and fascism are merely kissing cousins of the left. The
appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means
"group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which
is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms
of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism. The only
substantial difference between the two is fascism's limited observance of
private property rights, which is ostensible at best given its
susceptibility to rigid government regulation. Adolf Hitler confessed in
Hitler Speaks that "the whole of National socialism is based on Marx."
Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism. The historical
conflicts between communism and fascism were merely feuds between two
socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces. This is
the true nature of the political spectrum.
Ayn Rand probably provided the most eloquent summation of this dialectic:
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism
accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political
system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it
switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of
dictatorship?” - thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and
offering only a choice of rulers. The choice - according to the proponents
of the fraud - is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship
of the poor (communism) (Rand, p. 180, 1967).
However, the counterculture unconsciously subsumed the Establishment's
Hegelian meme and assessed the political climate of the time according to
the Establishment's Hegelian model of the political spectrum. The memory of
Nazi Germany and the atrocities of fascism during World War II were still
floating on the surface of public conscious. Frightened by the chimera of
"right-wing fascism," sixties radicals aligned themselves with the
crypto-Marxist left. Thus, the counterculture only further promulgated the
Hegelian dialectic of communism against fascism. Both of these polar
extremes represent variants of the same political doctrine: statism.
Cloistered within this dialectical framework, the counterculture enshrined
the very socialistic machinations of the State that would empower the
ruling class.
• Control Through Elite Financing - Although the sixties counterculture
mounted opposition against the Establishment, its adherents received
funding from the plutocrats themselves. In 1970, an Illinois commission
report revealed "…that $192,000 in Federal money and $85,000 in Carnegie
Foundation funds were paid to [the] Students for a Democratic
Society…during the fall of 1969" (Epperson, p.403, 1985). When undercover
police intelligence operative David Gumaer investigated the sources of SDS
financing, he:
…soon discovered it came through radicals via the United Nations, from the
Rockefeller Foundations, the Ford Foundation, United Auto Workers, as well
as cigar boxes of American money from the Cuban embassy (Epperson, p. 403,
1985).
In The Strawberry Statement: Notes of A College Revolutionary, former
revolutionary Kunen provided the following account of the 1968 S.D.S.
(Students for a Democratic Society) national convention:
Also at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables-the
meetings sponsored by the Business International for their client groups
and heads of government-tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the
world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are
going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress.
They're the left wing of the ruling class. They agreed with us on black
control and student control… They want McCarthy in. They see fascism as the
threat, see it coming from Wallace. The only way McCarthy could win is if
the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene more reasonable. They
offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso
(Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so
they can look more in the center as they move to the left (pg. 116).
Before the House and Senate Security Committees, former Communist Party
member and FBI informant James Kirk made the following statement:
They (sixties radicals) have no idea they are playing into the hands of the
Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they are fighting the
forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and don't realize that
it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution,
financing it, and using it for their own purposes (Griffin, 1995, pg.
107-108).
Eventually, a few of the sixties radicals became aware of this
manipulation. One such radical was the leader of SNCC, Stokely Carmichael.
James Kirk made the following observations concerning Carmichael:
Mr. Carmichael was obviously in the middle of something very important
which made him more nervous and tense than in the past…He started speaking
of things which he said he could not have said before because his research
was not finished… He repeated the line from the song he liked so well,
"Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr.
Jones?" He kept hitting on the theme that a very large monopoly capitalist
money group, the bankers to be exact, was instrumental in fomenting (the)
idea that the Jews are the ones actually behind the oppression of the
blacks…In the agencies of this power, he cited banks, the chief among which
were Morgan Guaranty Trust and Chase Manhattan. And the foundations
connected with these monoliths (Griffin, 1995, pg. 108).
Apparently, Carmichael's revelations presented a distinct threat to the
hidden manipulators. According to researcher Des Griffin: "Within weeks
Carmichael had been mysteriously removed from SNCC and the Black Panthers.
He had learned too much" (pg. 108)!
• Neutralization by COINTELPRO - Carmichael was but a microcosm of the
paradigm shift gradually taking place amongst the sixties radicals. Like
many of the power organisms that had originated with the ruling class, the
counterculture was developing autonomy. Recognizing this tectonic shift,
the elite decided that the movement was no longer a useful machination. In
fact, the sixties counterculture had become a potential threat to the
ruling class. The movement had to be neutralized. This was accomplished
through COINTELPRO, a counter-insurgency program within the FBI.
Ostensibly, COINTELPRO was presented as an anti-Communist
"counterintelligence program." According to the chief of the COINTELPRO unit:
We were trying first to develop intelligence so we would know what they
were doing [and] second, to contain the threat.... To stop the spread of
communism, to stop the effectiveness of the Communist Party as a vehicle of
Soviet intelligence, propaganda and agitation (Wolf, 2002).
However, COINTELPRO's objectives were delineated in such an elastic fashion
that they could be extended to encompass almost any form of activism. This
elasticity was especially evident in COINTELPRO's use of the vague
appellation "New Left." The Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations commented on this elasticity:
As discussed earlier, the Bureau did not define the term "New Left," and
the range of targets went far beyond alleged "subversives" or "extremists."
Thus, for example, two student participants in a "free speech"
demonstration were targeted because they defended the use of the classic
four-letter-word. Significantly, they were made COINTELPRO subjects even
though the demonstration "does not appear to be inspired by the New Left"
because it "shows obvious disregard for decency and established morality"
(Wolf, 2002).
Thus, COINTELPRO became America's "morality police." However, the
techniques employed by COINTELPRO were anything but moral. William C.
Sullivan, former assistant to the Director, provided a candid description
of the program's tactics:
This is a rough, tough, dirty business, and dangerous. It was dangerous at
times. No holds were barred.... We have used [these techniques] against
Soviet agents. They have used [them] against us. . . . [The same methods
were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted.
We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business (Wolf, 2002).
The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations provided a brief
synopsis of COINTELPRO's strategy:
The Bureau approved 2,370 separate counterintelligence actions. Their
techniques ranged from anonymously mailing reprints of newspaper and
magazine articles (sometimes Bureau-authored or planted) to group members
or supporters to convince them of the error of their ways, to mailing
anonymous letters to a member's spouse accusing the target of infidelity;
from using informants to raise controversial issues at meetings in order to
cause dissent, to the "snitch jacket" (falsely labeling a group member as
an informant) and encouraging street warfare between violent groups; from
contacting members of a "legitimate group to expose the alleged subversive
background of a fellow member to contacting an employer to get a target
fired; from attempting to arrange for reporters to interview targets with
planted questions, to trying to stop targets from speaking at all; from
notifying state and local authorities of a target's criminal law
violations, to using the IRS to audit a professor, not just to collect any
taxes owing, but to distract him from his political activities (Wolf, 2002).
While many researchers characterize COINTELPRO as a "right-wing
conspiracy," it must be understood that so-called "left-wing" Communist
regimes employed the same tactics. Recall William C. Sullivan's statement:
"We have used [these techniques] against Soviet agents. They have used
[them] against us. . . ." (Wolf, 2002). This fact reinforces the chimerical
nature of the traditional left vs. right dialectic. Totalitarianism is
totalitarianism, irrespective of whatever Hegelian appellation the
orthodoxy of political science might assign it.
The Anti-WTO Movement
The elite's Hegelian strategy of ideological divide and conquer is also
evident in the case of the World Trade Organization. Exploiting the
intrinsic irrationalism of partisan affiliations, the oligarchs promulgated
another fraudulent dialectical struggle between the right-wing and the
left-wing.
• "Right-wing" Manipulation - Republicans, neo-conservatives, and other
so-called "right-wingers" selectively overlooked the genuine threat posed
by the WTO: the further erosion of national sovereignty and destabilization
of national economies. Why would they turn their heads and ignore such an
obvious danger? Simple. Support of the WTO constituted loyalty to the
Republican Party. After all, didn't George Bush support free trade? Doesn't
a good Republican support everything that a Republican president supports,
irrespective of the economic, political, or moral ramifications? The
National Review and other neo-conservative rags printed avid defense
polemics for the WTO, thus reiterating a dictum espoused by both major
political parties: "Our way or the highway." This rigidity endemic to the
two-party system has already resulted in the ostracism of two dissenting
voices, Patrick Buchanan and James Trafficant. Such is the irrationality of
strict adherence to partisan affiliations.
• "Left-wing" manipulation - Meanwhile, many of the left-wing anti-WTO
protesters had no qualms with world government or globalism. They certainly
were not heartbroken by the fact that globalist machinations such as the
WTO undermined national sovereignty and subordinated national economies to
the authority of an onerous global entity. Majorities of the protesters
were eco-zealots (i.e., watermelon Marxists, green on the outside and red
on the inside) whose only problem was the global elite's disregard for the
environmental chimera they dubbed "Gaia." New Republic journalist Robert
Wright made the following observation concerning Ralph Nader and other
phony left-wing WTO protesters:
"Nader and most of the Seattle left would gladly accept a
sovereignty-crushing world body if it followed the leftist model of
supranational governance found in the European Union" (Wright, 2000).
To appease the puppets of this artificially contrived opposition, President
Bill Clinton "espoused a future WTO whose member nations would meet global
environmental and labor standards or else face sanction" (Wright, 2000).
If anything, the WTO conflict represented a feud between elite factions:
the Anglo-American Establishment of the west and the European Union of the
east. Of course, there is further fragmentation into smaller sub-factions,
but these two camps seem to be the major players. Both the eastern and
western elites desire a world government. However, the western ruling class
seeks to establish what they call a Pax Americana, a New World Order
headquartered in America. The eastern elite wants a Pax Europa with the
locus of power firmly embedded in Europe.
The masses rallied in one of the two camps. The so-called "right-wing"
(i.e., conservatives, Republicans, nominal Christians, etc.) aligned
themselves with the Anglo-American Establishment. Meanwhile, the so-called
"left-wing" (i.e., liberals, radical environmentalists, Democrats,
traditional Marxists, etc.) aligned themselves with the oligarchs of the
European Union. It must be understood that both sides are intrinsically
irrational and wrong. Both are facilitating the formation of a one world
socialist totalitarian government. Either way, the free republic of America
is doomed should one of these camps succeed. This is the anatomy of the
elite's Hegelian dialectic, an ongoing process of divide and conquer.
Political Activism and the Second Gulf War
There can be little debate over the illegitimacy of the latest American
military campaign in Iraq. Clearly, the war was illegal because it was
antithetical to the principles of Americanism. It was never the policy of
the Founding Fathers to attack other nations without provocation. Iraq did
not overtly attack the United States and the contention that it did through
the surrogate apparatus of al-Qaida has never been substantiated. Moreover,
a guiding axiom of Americanism has been the avoidance of entangling
alliances abroad. The so-called "coalition of nations" that fought Saddam
represented one such entangling alliance. Unilaterally, bilaterally, or
multilaterally, America's initiation of the war was still wrong. However,
infected by Hegelian memes and controlled through elite financing, the
antiwar movement only helped to further realize the ruling class' objectives.
• Empowering the UN - Many of the left-wing "antiwar" protesters argued
that the United States could not go to war without the approval of the
United Nations. Moveon.org trumpeted mantras such as "Inspections work.
Wars don't!" Win Without War urged people to tell congress: "Supporting the
current UN disarmament mission in Iraq is critical" (Jasper, 2003). Yet,
perhaps the most blatantly pro-UN statement was made by Peace Action:
The US must do its part to strengthen international legal systems in order
for them to be as effective as possible. This means immediately paying US
back dues to the United Nations (UN) and working through the UN to
strengthen international laws on terrorism and the means to enforce them.
The US should also support the International Criminal Court (ICC)....
(Jasper, 2003).
This contention was a Trojan horse of the UN's globalist masters. The
Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other Freedom documents constitute the
only legitimate law of the land, NOT any of the edicts or decrees of the
United Nations. This was an obvious ploy to empower the United Nations as a
world government and further undermine the sovereignty of the United
States. In truth, the so-called "antiwar" protesters would have had little
or no trouble with the war had it been officially sanctioned by the United
Nations, which has always been a conduit for elitist interests.
• Elite Financing - The left-wing antiwar activists fancied themselves as
some sort of grass roots movement, another populist crusade for the
twenty-first century. However, a recent article in the Washington Post
painted quite a different portrait. Journalist Julia Duin observed: "The
American antiwar movement is decked out with all the elements of the
counterculture, but it is getting some very establishment funding" (Duin,
p. 1, 2003).
The Institute for Policy Studies, which is a left-wing think tank with a
budget of $2.2 million, had circulated numerous anti-war polemics in recent
months (Duin, p.1, 2003). Among the various Establishment institutions
financing this entity were the Turner, Ford, MacArthur, and Charles Stewart
Mott foundations (Duin, p.1, 2003). The Institute for Policy Studies finds
its very origins with the ruling class. New York banks provided the money
necessary to establish the IPS as a branch of the Bertrand Russell Peace
Foundation (Dope, Inc., p. 547, 1992). James Warburg, son of first Federal
Reserve chairman Paul Warburg, was a founding trustee of IPS (Dope, Inc.,
p. 540, 1992).
Eli Pariser, the international campaigns director of Moveon.org, openly
admitted that his organization had an operating budget of $300,000 a year
(Duin, p. 2, 2003). One major accomplishment that this group boasted was
its $3.5 million grossing fund-raiser for liberal political candidates
during the 2002 election (Duin, p. 2, 2003). No doubt, these grateful
politicians were also major contributors to Moveon.org's $300,000 operating
budget. After all, reciprocity is the key to any healthy relationship.
• Manufactured Opposition - Of course, it would be both biased and flatly
incorrect to assert that elite manipulation has remained confined solely to
the left-wing. The so-called "right-wing" also played an integral role in
the manipulation surrounding Bush's war in Iraq. Meanwhile, on the other
end of the bogus political spectrum, the Establishment had manufactured its
own synthetic opposition. Suddenly, from Fort Wayne to Cleveland and
Atlanta to Philadelphia, "pro-war" rallies were launched to support Bush's
Iraq campaign (Burkeman, p. 1, 2003). Was this a grass roots response to
the antiwar demonstrations? Journalist Oliver Burkeman answers this question:
But many of the rallies, it turns out, have been organized and paid for by
Clear Channel Inc. - the country's largest radio conglomerate, owning 1,200
stations - which is not only reporting on the war at the same time, but
whose links with President Bush stretch back to his earliest,
much-criticised financial dealings as governor of Texas. The company has
paid advertising costs and for the hire of musicians for the rallies
(Burkeman, p. 1, 2003).
Predictably, many conservatives, Republicans, and so-called "Christians"
flocked to this dialectical camp. As the hawks and the doves engaged in the
harlequin antics of a fraudulent ideological melee, the power elite
strengthened their grip on society.
It is painfully clear that political activism in the United States has been
rendered ineffective or, in some cases, detrimental to the activists
themselves. A portion of the blame rests on the shoulders of the
Establishment, which has controlled movements through elite funding.
However, a larger portion of the blame must be shouldered by the activists
themselves. Contaminated by Hegelian memes and trapped in dialectical
snares, activists continue to help the very plutocrats they claim to hate.
Only when activists learn to transcend partisan affiliations and develop
some autonomous aptitude will America finally see the fruits of any
political activism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources Cited
Burkeman, Oliver, "Bush backer sponsoring pro-war rallies,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4633514,00.html, March 26, 2003.
Duin, Julia, "Foundation cash funds antiwar movement,"
http://dynamic.washtimes.com/twt-print.cfm?ArticleID=20030402-42181748,
April 2, 2003.
Editors of Executive Intelligence Review, Dope Inc., Executive Intelligence
Review, Washington, D.C. 1992.
Epperson, Ralph, The Unseen Hand, Publius Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1985.
Griffin, Des, Fourth Reich of the Rich, Emissary Publications, Oregon, 1995.
Kunen, James, The Strawberry Statement, Random House, New York, 1968.
Jasper, William F. "Recycling Radicalism," The New American Magazine
Online,
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/03-24-2003/vo19no06_radicalism.htm, 2003.
Rand, Ayn, Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, New American Library, Reissue
edition, July 1986.
Wolf, Paul, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports On Intelligence Activities
And The Rights Of Americans, http://www.cointel.org, 2002.
Wright, Robert, "Continental Drift," New Republic On-line,
http://www.tnr.com/011700/coverstory011700.html, September 17, 2000.
Author's Biography
Phillip Darrell Collins was the chief editor of The Hidden Face of
Terrorism, a book by Paul David Collins. He can be contacted at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Hidden Face of Terrorism can be purchased
at 1stbooks.com.
http://www.centrexnews.com/opinion/2003/Phillip_Collins_10jul03.html
------------------------------------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government.
--George Washington
-------------------------------------------------
Smash The State! mailing list home
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate
---
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/mk9osC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/aQSolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
----------------------------------
Smash The State WWW
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smashthestate
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
