Editorial: A People’s Movement | Idle No More

Intercontinental Cry

By Jay Taber

Jan 15, 2013

In my recent editorial Anticipating Reaction, I listed some books that Idle No More activists and their supporters might find useful. One of those seemed particularly relevant to Canada’s current First Nations rebellion.

In James Forman’s 1997 book The Making of Black Revolutionaries, the former organizer of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) — that led the sit-ins against American apartheid, and risked their lives in support of Black communities in Mississippi Freedom Summer — recalled the challenges of working with the established Black elites of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) who wanted to control the activists. →

Rebel Groups In Africa, How Are They Funded?

January 9, 2013,

Honourable Saka

Project Pan Africa

 

“It is high time Africans begun finding answers to some of these questions. Until then, let us pretend we have no idea and continue to stay unconcerned and watch while these rebel groups gradually take over our once peaceful continent, and spread the chaos, instability, wars and many more wars across Africa.” →

Chief Spence Calls for Indian Act Chiefs to “Take Control” of Grassroots Movement

“An uncomfortable analysis, but one we must carry over to other struggles.” -d.

by Zig Zag,

Warrior Publications

During a Dec 30 press conference on her 20th day of hunger striking, Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence called on other Indian Act chiefs to take control of the grassroots movement, stating in a written text (read out by one of her aides):  “First Nations leadership needs to take charge and control of the situation on behalf of the grassroots movement.” →

Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left

Why Humanitarian Interventionism is a Dead End

Louvain, Belgium

Ever since the 1990s, and especially since the Kosovo war in 1999, anyone who opposes armed interventions by Western powers and NATO has to confront what may be called an anti-anti-war left (including its far left segment).  In Europe, and notably in France, this anti-anti-war left is made up of the mainstream of social democracy, the Green parties and most of the radical left.  The anti-anti-war left does not come out openly in favor of Western military interventions and even criticizes them at times (but usually only for their tactics or alleged motivations – the West is supporting a just cause, but clumsily and for oil or for geo-strategic reasons).   But most of its energy is spent issuing “warnings” against the supposed dangerous drift of that part of the left that remains firmly opposed to such interventions.  It calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism, and above all not to end up on the same side as the far right.  After the Kosovo Albanians in 1999, we have been told that “we” must protect Afghan women, Iraqi Kurds and more recently the people of Libya and of Syria.

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria.   Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The fundamental ambiguity of the anti-anti-war left lies in the question as to who are the “we” who are supposed to intervene and protect.  One might ask the Western left, social movements or human rights organizations the same question Stalin addressed to the Vatican, “How many divisions do you have?”  As a matter of fact, all the conflicts in which “we” are supposed to intervene are armed conflicts.  Intervening means intervening militarily and for that, one needs the appropriate military means. It is perfectly obvious that the Western left does not possess those means.  It could call on European armies to intervene, instead of the United States, but they have never done so without massive support from the United States.  So in reality the actual message of the anti-anti-war left is: “Please, oh Americans, make war not love!” Better still, inasmuch as since their debacle in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Americans are leery of sending in ground troops, the message amounts to nothing other than asking the U.S. Air Force to go bomb countries where human rights violations are reported to be taking place. →

The Pathological Psychology of Western Capitalism

Exploring the psychic distortions that sustain the market system

ZNet

 

The many glaring ills of contemporary Western society have come into sharp focus in the socio-political and philosophical thought of the past two centuries. The cultural pathologies of modern Western society abound, embedded in every dimension of our lives, manifesting themselves in various forms pathological behavior. Within conventional psychological and psychoanalytic frameworks, such matters are often (perhaps mistakenly) treated as essentially individual phenomena. Poor mental health in society is a matter of individual maladjustment. In response to this hopelessly reductionist approach, Erich Fromm proposed the much more radical notion of a fundamental “unadjustment of the culture itself.” Perhaps conceiving of social pathology as an individual deviation from an otherwise healthy and well functioning whole is a false start. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that modern Western society is haunted by what Fromm called a “pathology of normalcy”– – when the “normal” functioning of society is itself a disturbing pattern of collective pathology.

In a culture in which the individual is enmeshed in a myriad of complex social structures, systems, and institutions wielding enormous force and influence over daily life, it is appropriate to at least critically address whether the social order itself is in fact sane. The general theme of the following analysis is that Western society is indeed trapped in this pathology of normalcy, rooted in what are fundamentally anti-human properties of capitalist social relations and economic and cultural institutions. It is both the concrete conditions of these arrangements and the values that underlie them that will shed light on the psychological state of contemporary Western society.

In Sane Society, Fromm highlights two conceptual frameworks, and their guiding assumptions, we should consider in making claims about the collective mental health of a society. Sociological relativism, the doctrine that a given society is “normal” inasmuch as it functions and thus rendering pathology an issue of poor individual adjustment, precludes objective criteria for evaluating the mental health of human beings. The much more bold perspective of normative humanism on the other hand affirms the existence of appropriate universal criteria for evaluating the mental health of all people, irrespective of cultural systems.(Fromm 21) Positing that human beings have natural basic needs and psychic qualities governing their mental and emotional functioning, the satisfaction of which is inherent in any reasonable measure of psychological well-being, normative humanism provides a measure against which we can analyze collective mental health and social pathology. The primary claims put forth above demand such a measure, which lie at the core of Fromm’s humanistic psychoanalysis. It is, as always, a question of human nature.

Humanistic psychoanalysis insists that an accurate conception of human nature can be deduced from the study of the concrete conditions of human beings and their evolutionary and social development.  The human being represents a unique break in the evolution of life, a qualitative leap constituting a life form fundamentally different from all before it. A transition from the passive existence of the purely instinctual creature to the self-directed consciousness of the modern human: a new, transcendent species when “life became aware of itself.” (30) Nature has thus endowed humanity with the unique faculties for creative expression, free spontaneous activity, self-awareness and reflection, constructive engagement with the world, capacities for empathy and cooperation. Human needs are inherently social; our growth and development is not an isolated, individual phenomenon. Biological survival and social development both depend upon our relations to others, and so it is in our relationships with others that we realize our humanity. However, the emergent psychic properties of self-awareness, reason, and imagination—at once liberating and destabilizing–of this new being disrupts the “harmony” of the natural animal world. The transcendent qualities of humanity paradoxically make it the least fit for the realm of nature, in which instinctual response rules. Humanity can not, as other animals do, live by physiological adaptation and genetic determination alone; rather, we must create our existence for ourselves. Fromm notes that “we are never free from two conflicting tendencies: one to emerge from the womb, from the animal form of existence into a more human existence, from bondage to freedom; another, to return to the womb, to nature, to certainty and security.”(33) It is to find a solution to this fundamental contradiction that motivates human existence.

Our evolutionary, biological origins render the range of potential instincts, traits, and behaviors in human nature seemingly endless; the crucial question is which of these instincts are the social order going to maximize (or minimize). A social system is not simply the sum of its parts; over time, complex systems of interacting institutions take on logics of their own, while the whole develops a dynamism not found in its constitutive parts. To determine the mental health of Western society, we must consider the concrete conditions of our modes of production and forms of social-political organization to come up with a generalizable personaility structure. To do so, Fromm develops the concept of the social character: “the nucleus of the character structure which is shared by most members of the same culture.” (Fromm 76) The social character is a kind of conceptual cultural prototype generated by the institutional and structural foundations of society. For any system to survive, it must develop a means of channeling the human energies within society in accordance with the needs of the system, into cognitions and behaviors that ensure the continued functioning of society. If it becomes a matter of conscious choice whether or not to adhere to dominant social patterns, the system could be endangered. In its purest and most effective form, the character structure operates at the unconscious level, ensuring people “want to act as they have to act, and at the same time finding gratification in acting according to the requirements of the culture.”(Fromm 77) As Adorno pointed out, “it is part of the mechanism of domination to forbid recognition of the suffering it produces.” (Schmookler 118)

What is the social character of modern Western capitalist society? It must be deduced from analysis of the socio-economic institutions that govern our lives. All social institutions incentivize certain types of behavior while discouraging others.(Albert 65) What are the defining institutions of Western society? In capitalist society, the economic sphere is defined by three major institutional forces: private ownership, market allocation, and corporate divisions of labor. Embedded in a competitive class structure, these institutions dominate peoples’ lives and shape their values, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Markets are the central institutions in capitalist society, organizing social activity according to their core values and projecting their power onto every dimension of human relationships. Prices and commodities are the language of markets and decisions are determined by a cold logic of material self-interest. Human beings in a market system engage in the social activities of production and consumption as atomized buyers and sellers in competition for scarce income and resources. The drive for profit is the dominant motivational force in market relationships, each actor advancing at the expense of another. Markets systematically subvert collective well-being by externalizing the costs of economic exchange onto others in society and the environment. Market pricing systems “lack concrete qualitative information and the obscuring of social ties and connections in market economies make cooperation difficult, while competitive pressures make cooperation irrational.” (Albert 66).

Private property breeds opposition by dividing society into owners and non-owners, with fundamentally divergent interests. It confers onto owners of capital disproportionate powers of decision making in the collective affairs of society, subordinating others to the interests of private wealth. Inherited wealth and power, disparate access to social resources and means of development, the erosion of cooperative values and common interest are the result of private ownership of productive social assets. Corporate divisions of labor divide the workplace, a central sphere of human activity in capitalist society, into hierarchies of disproportionate empowerment, quality of life, remuneration, and status. Unequal distribution of empowering circumstances, decision-making information, skills, confidence, and well being obstructs the healthy cognitive development of members of a corporate workplace.(Albert 46) The divisions of labor in capitalism fragment the mental and physical development of the human being. Specialization prohibits the worker’s interaction with the fruits of their labor as a whole. Sharp divisions of labor produce “individualism, narrowness of vision, and privatism” and detach people from each other and the public domain. (Benton 112) Holistic cognitive development is stunted by strict adherence to a single productive mode; rote, deadening, obedient work destroys one’s self-esteem and creative faculties. Indeed, the corporation has evolved into the dominant institution in Western capitalist society.

Borrowing from the psychologist Robert Hare, legal scholar Joel Bakan applies a diagnostic checklist of psychological traits to demonstrate, in human terms, the psychopathic nature of the modern corporation. The corporation: is irresponsible by endangering others in its inherently singular pursuit of profit, manipulative towards others in search for greater power and control, shamelessly grandiose in its self-conception, displays antisocial tendencies and a lack of empathy, and is remorseless in its wrongdoing.(Bakan 57) In human, social terms the corporation fails to live up to any reasonable measure of what we would consider to be a psychologically healthy human being. In these contexts, human behavior is molded in accordance with the role requirements (buyer, seller, owner, worker, etc.) of the institutions.

In capitalist society, people are conditioned by the requirements of the system to conceive of themselves and others in terms of economic utility. Production and consumption are heightened as the most natural and essential of human activities. From this develops a proliferation of materialist values; material goods are artificially infused with human dimensions, and life is experienced through the inanimate medium of the commodity. The productivist ideology of capitalism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, actually transforming people into the theoretical personality types of laissez-faire, capitalist doctrine. So how do people experience these activities, deceptively elevated to the status of a “natural law” by capitalist ideology (which in itself profoundly impacts our values)? As Michael Albert notes, “hierarchical work leaves different imprints on personalities. For those at the top, it yields an inquisitive, expansive outlook. For those at the bottom [the vast majority of people in capitalist society], it leaves an aggrieved and self-deprecating outlook” and induces hostility and aggression. Production is experienced as an estranged activity of the worker, devoid of any intrinsic value or self-fulfilling properties. For the great majority of society, work becomes a mechanical and mindless activity, and the worker a “perversion of a free being.”  “Labor’s product, confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer…the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.”(Marx 72) Ironically, despite its productivist ideological roots, in capitalist society work is conceived of as an essentially inhuman chore, to be abolished by technological development and automation. →

The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy

CrimethInc. Ex-Workers’ Collective

“The discourse of violence and nonviolence is attractive above all because it offers an easy way to claim the higher moral ground. This makes it seductive both for criticizing the state and for competing against other activists for influence. But in a hierarchical society, gaining the higher ground often reinforces hierarchy itself.”

What is violence? Who gets to define it? Does it have a place in the pursuit of liberation? These age-old questions have returned to the fore during the Occupy movement. But this discussion never takes place on a level playing field; while some delegitimize violence, the language of legitimacy itself paves the way for the authorities to employ it.

 

“Though lines of police on horses, and with dogs, charged the main street outside the police station to push rioters back, there were significant pockets of violence which they could not reach.”

–The New York Times, on the UK riots of August 2011

 

During the 2001 FTAA summit in Quebec City, one newspaper famously reported that violence erupted when protesters began throwing tear gas canisters back at the lines of riot police. When the authorities are perceived to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, “violence” is often used to denote illegitimate use of force—anything that interrupts or escapes their control. This makes the term something of a floating signifier, since it is also understood to mean “harm or threat that violates consent.”

This is further complicated by the ways our society is based on and permeated by harm or threat that violates consent. In this sense, isn’t it violent to live on colonized territory, destroying ecosystems through our daily consumption and benefitting from economic relations that are forced on others at gunpoint? Isn’t it violent for armed guards to keep food and land, once a commons shared by all, from those who need them? Is it more violent to resist the police who evict people from their homes, or to stand aside while people are made homeless? Is it more violent to throw tear gas canisters back at police, or to denounce those who throw them back as “violent,” giving police a free hand to do worse?

In this state of affairs, there is no such thing as nonviolence—the closest we can hope to come is to negate the harm or threat posed by the proponents of top-down violence. And when so many people are invested in the privileges this violence affords them, it’s naïve to think that we could defend ourselves and others among the dispossessed without violating the wishes of at least a few bankers and landlords. So instead of asking whether an action is violent, we might do better to ask simply: does it counteract power disparities, or reinforce them?

This is the fundamental anarchist question. We can ask it in every situation; every further question about values, tactics, and strategy proceeds from it. When the question can be framed thus, why would anyone want to drag the debate back to the dichotomy of violence and nonviolence?

The discourse of violence and nonviolence is attractive above all because it offers an easy way to claim the higher moral ground. This makes it seductive both for criticizing the state and for competing against other activists for influence. But in a hierarchical society, gaining the higher ground often reinforces hierarchy itself.

Legitimacy is one of the currencies that are unequally distributed in our society, through which its disparities are maintained. Defining people or actions as violent is a way of excluding them from legitimate discourse, of silencing and shutting out. This parallels and reinforces other forms of marginalization: a wealthy white person can act “nonviolently” in ways that would be seen as violent were a poor person of color to do the same thing. In an unequal society, the defining of “violence” is no more neutral than any other tool.

Defining people or actions as violent also has immediate consequences: it justifies the use of force against them. This has been an essential step in practically every campaign targeting communities of color, protest movements, and others on the wrong side of capitalism. If you’ve attended enough mobilizations, you know that it’s often possible to anticipate exactly how much violence the police will use against a demonstration by the way the story is presented on the news the night before. In this regard, pundits and even rival organizers can participate in policing alongside the police, determining who is a legitimate target by the way they frame the narrative.

On the one-year anniversary of the Egyptian uprising, the military lifted the Emergency Laws—“except in thug-related cases.” The popular upheaval of 2011 had forced the authorities to legitimize previously unacceptable forms of resistance, with Obama characterizing as “nonviolent” an uprising in which thousands had fought police and burned down police stations. In order to re-legitimize the legal apparatus of the dictatorship, it was necessary to create a new distinction between violent “thugs” and the rest of the population. Yet the substance of this distinction was never spelled out; in practice, “thug” is simply the word for a person targeted by the Emergency Laws. From the perspective of the authorities, ideally the infliction of violence itself would suffice to brand its victims as violent—i.e., as legitimate targets.[1]

So when a broad enough part of the population engages in resistance, the authorities have to redefine it as nonviolent, even if it would previously have been considered violent. Otherwise, the dichotomy between violence and legitimacy might erode—and without that dichotomy, it would be much harder to justify the use of force against those who threaten the status quo. By the same token, the more ground we cede in what we permit the authorities to define as violent, the more they will sweep into that category, and the greater risk all of us will face. One consequence of the past several decades of self-described nonviolent civil disobedience is that some people regard merely raising one’s voice as violent; this makes it possible to portray those who take even the most tentative steps to protect themselves against police violence as violent thugs.

“The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence… linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest.”

-UC police captain Margo Bennett,
quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle,
justifying the use of force against students
at the University of California at Berkeley

 

The Master’s Tools: Delegitimization, Misrepresentation, and Division

Violent repression is only one side of the two-pronged strategy by which social movements are suppressed. For this repression to succeed, movements must be divided into legitimate and illegitimate, and the former convinced to disown the latter—usually in return for privileges or concessions. We can see this process up close in the efforts of professional journalists like Chris Hedges and Rebecca Solnit to demonize rivals in the Occupy movement.

In last year’s Throwing Out the Master’s Tools and Building a Better House: Thoughts on the Importance of Nonviolence in the Occupy Revolution,” Rebecca Solnit mixed together moral and strategic arguments against “violence,” hedging her bets with a sort of US exceptionalism: Zapatistas can carry guns and Egyptian rebels set buildings on fire, but let no one so much as burn a trash can in the US. At base, her argument was that only “people power” can achieve revolutionary social change—and that “people power” is necessarily nonviolent.

Solnit should know that the defining of violence isn’t neutral: in her article “The Myth of Seattle Violence,” she recounted her unsuccessful struggle to get the New York Times to stop representing the demonstrations against the 1999 WTO summit in Seattle as “violent.” In consistently emphasizing violence as her central category, Solnit is reinforcing the effectiveness of one of the tools that will inevitably be used against protesters—including her—whenever it serves the interests of the powerful.

Solnit reserves particular ire for those who endorse diversity of tactics as a way to preclude the aforementioned dividing of movements. Several paragraphs of “Throwing Out the Master’s Tools” were devoted to denouncing the CrimethInc. “Dear Occupiers” pamphlet: Solnit proclaimed it “a screed in justification of violence,” “empty machismo peppered with insults,” and stooped to ad hominem attacks on authors about whom she admittedly knew nothing.[2]

As anyone can readily ascertain, the majority of “Dear Occupiers” simply reviews the systemic problems with capitalism; the advocacy of diversity of tactics is limited to a couple subdued paragraphs. Why would an award-winning author represent this as a pro-violence screed?

Perhaps for the same reason that she joins the authorities in delegitimizing violence even when this equips them to delegitimize her own efforts: Solnit’s leverage in social movements and her privileges in capitalist society are both staked on the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate. If social movements ever cease to be managed from the top down—if they stop policing themselves—the Hedges and Solnits of the world will be out of a job literally as well as figuratively. That would explain why they perceive their worst enemies to be those who soberly advise against dividing movements into legitimate and illegitimate factions.

It’s hard to imagine Solnit would have represented “Dear Occupiers” the way she did if she expected her audience to read it. Given her readership, this is a fairly safe bet—Solnit is often published in the corporate media, while CrimethInc. literature is distributed only through grass-roots networks; in any case, she didn’t include a link. Chris Hedges took similar liberties in his notorious “The Cancer in Occupy,” a litany of outrageous generalizations about “black bloc anarchists.” It seems that both authors’ ultimate goal is silencing: Why would you want to hear what those people have to say? They’re violent thugs.

The title of Solnit’s article is a reference to Audre Lorde’s influential text, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” Lorde’s text was not an endorsement of nonviolence; even Derrick Jensen, whom Hedges quotes approvingly, has debunked such misuse of this quotation. Here, let it suffice to repeat that the most powerful of the master’s tools is not violence, but delegitimization and division—as Lorde emphasized in her text. To defend our movements against these, Lorde exhorted us:

“Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark… Only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters.”

If we are to survive, that means:

“…learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish… learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

It is particularly shameless that Solnit would quote Lorde’s argument against silencing out of context in order to delegitimize and divide. But perhaps we should not be surprised when successful professionals sell out anonymous poor people: they have to defend their class interests, or else risk joining us. For the mechanisms that raise people to positions of influence within activist hierarchies and liberal media are not neutral, either; they reward docility, often coded as “nonviolence,” rendering invisible those whose efforts actually threaten capitalism and hierarchy.

The Lure of Legitimacy

When we want to be taken seriously, it’s tempting to claim legitimacy any way we can. But if we don’t want to reinforce the hierarchies of our society, we should be careful not to validate forms of legitimacy that perpetuate them.

It is easy to recognize how this works in some situations: when we evaluate people on the basis of their academic credentials, for example, this prioritizes abstract knowledge over lived experience, centralizing those who can get a fair shot in academia and marginalizing everyone else. In other cases, this occurs more subtly. We emphasize our status as community organizers, implying that those who lack the time or resources for such pursuits are less entitled to speak. We claim credibility as longtime locals, implicitly delegitimizing all who are not—including immigrants who have been forced to move to our neighborhoods because their communities have been wrecked by processes originating in ours. We justify our struggles on the basis of our roles within capitalist society—as students, workers, taxpayers, citizens—not realizing how much harder this can make it for the unemployed, homeless, and excluded to justify theirs.

We’re often surprised by the resulting blowback. Politicians discredit our comrades with the very vocabulary we popularized: “Those aren’t activists, they’re homeless people pretending to be activists.” “We’re not targeting communities of color, we’re protecting them from criminal activity.” Yet we prepared the way for this ourselves by affirming language that makes legitimacy conditional.

When we emphasize that our movements are and must be nonviolent, we’re doing the same thing. This creates an Other that is outside the protection of whatever legitimacy we win for ourselves—that is, in short, a legitimate target for violence. Anyone who pulls their comrades free from the police rather than waiting passively to be arrested—anyone who makes shields to protect themselves from rubber bullets rather than abandoning the streets to the police—anyone who is charged with assault on an officer for being assaulted by one: all these unfortunates are thrown to the wolves as the violent ones, the bad apples. Those who must wear masks even in legal actions because of their precarious employment or immigration status are denounced as cancer, betrayed in return for a few crumbs of legitimacy from the powers that be. We Good Citizens can afford to be perfectly transparent; we would never commit a crime or harbor a potential criminal in our midst.

And the Othering of violence smooths the way for the violence of Othering. The ones who bear the worst consequences of this are not the middle class brats pilloried in internet flame wars, but the same people on the wrong side of every other dividing line in capitalism: the poor, the marginalized, those who have no credentials, no institutions to stand up for them, no incentive to play the political games that are slanted in favor of the authorities and perhaps also a few jet-setting activists.

Simply delegitimizing violence can’t put an end to it. The disparities of this society couldn’t be maintained without it, and the desperate will always respond by acting out, especially when they sense that they’ve been abandoned to their fate. But this kind of delegitimization can create a gulf between the angry and the morally upright, the “irrational” and the rational, the violent and the social. We saw the consequences of this in the UK riots of August 2011, when many of the disenfranchised, despairing of bettering themselves through any legitimate means, hazarded a private war against property, the police, and the rest of society. Some of them had attempted to participate in previous popular movements, only to be stigmatized as hooligans; not surprisingly, their rebellion took an antisocial turn, resulting in five deaths and further alienating them from other sectors of the population.

The responsibility for this tragedy rests not only on the rebels themselves, nor on those who imposed the injustices from which they suffered, but also upon the activists who stigmatized them rather than joining in creating a movement that could channel their anger. If there is no connection between those who intend to transform society and those who suffer most within it, no common cause between the hopeful and the enraged, then when the latter rebel, the former will disown them, and the latter will be crushed along with all hope of real change. No effort to do away with hierarchy can succeed while excluding the disenfranchised, the Others.

What should be our basis for legitimacy, then, if not our commitment to legality, nonviolence, or any other standard that hangs our potential comrades out to dry? How do we explain what we’re doing and why we’re entitled to do it? We have to mint and circulate a currency of legitimacy that is not controlled by our rulers, that doesn’t create Others.

As anarchists, we hold that our desires and well-being and those of our fellow creatures are the only meaningful basis for action. Rather than classifying actions as violent or nonviolent, we focus on whether they extend or curtail freedom. Rather than insisting that we are nonviolent, we emphasize the necessity of interrupting the violence inherent in top-down rule. This might be inconvenient for those accustomed to seeking dialogue with the powerful, but it is unavoidable for everyone who truly wishes to abolish their power.

Conclusion: Back to Strategy

But how do we interrupt the violence of top-down rule? The partisans of nonviolence frame their argument in strategic as well as moral terms: violence alienates the masses, preventing us from building the “people power” we need to triumph.

There is a kernel of truth at the heart of this. If violence is understood as illegitimate use of force, their argument can be summarized as a tautology: delegitimized action is unpopular.

Indeed, those who take the legitimacy of capitalist society for granted are liable to see anyone who takes material steps to counteract its disparities as violent. The challenge facing us, then, is to legitimize concrete forms of resistance: not on the grounds that they are nonviolent, but on the grounds that they are liberating, that they fulfill real needs and desires.

This is not an easy matter. Even when we passionately believe in what we are doing, if it is not widely recognized as legitimate we tend to sputter when asked to explain ourselves. If only we could stay within the bounds prescribed for us within this system while we go about overthrowing it! The Occupy movement was characterized by attempts to do just that—citizens insisting on their right to occupy public parks on the basis of obscure legal loopholes, making tortuous justifications no more convincing to onlookers than to the authorities. People want to redress the injustices around them, but in a highly regulated and controlled society, there’s so little they feel entitled to do.

Solnit may be right that the emphasis on nonviolence was essential to the initial success of Occupy Wall Street: people want some assurance that they’re not going to have to leave their comfort zones, and that what they’re doing will make sense to everyone else. But it often happens that the preconditions for a movement become limitations that it must transcend: Occupy Oakland remained vibrant after other occupations died down because it embraced a diversity of tactics, not despite this. Likewise, if we really want to transform our society, we can’t remain forever within the narrow boundaries of what the authorities deem legitimate: we have to extend the range of what people feel entitled to do.

All the media coverage in the world won’t help us if we fail to create a situation in which people feel entitled to defend themselves and each other.

Legitimizing resistance, expanding what is acceptable, is not going to be popular at first—it never is, precisely because of the tautology set forth above. It takes consistent effort to shift the discourse: calmly facing outrage and recriminations, humbly emphasizing our own criteria for what is legitimate.

Whether we think this challenge is worthwhile depends on our long-term goals. As David Graeber has pointed out, conflicts over goals often masquerade as moral and strategic differences. Making nonviolence the central tenet of our movement makes good sense if our long-term goal is not to challenge the fundamental structure of our society, but to build a mass movement that can wield legitimacy as defined by the powerful—and that is prepared to police itself accordingly. But if we really want to transform our society, we have to transform the discourse of legitimacy, not just position ourselves well within it as it currently exists. If we focus only on the latter, we will find that terrain slipping constantly from beneath our feet, and that many of those with whom we need to find common cause can never share it with us.

It’s important to have strategic debates: shifting away from the discourse of nonviolence doesn’t mean we have to endorse every single broken window as a good idea.. But it only obstructs these debates when dogmatists insist that all who do not share their goals and assumptions—not to say their class interests!—have no strategic sense. It’s also not strategic to focus on delegitimizing each other’s efforts rather than coordinating to act together where we overlap. That’s the point of affirming a diversity of tactics: to build a movement that has space for all of us, yet leaves no space for domination and silencing—a “people power” that can both expand and intensify.

Further Reading

Debating Tactics: Remember to Ask, “What Works?”

Historicizing “Violence”: Thoughts on the Hedges/Graeber Debate

“Those who said that the Egyptian revolution was peaceful did not see the horrors that police visited upon us, nor did they see the resistance and even force that revolutionaries used against the police to defend their tentative occupations and spaces: by the government’s own admission, 99 police stations were put to the torch, thousands of police cars were destroyed, and all of the ruling party’s offices around Egypt were burned down. Barricades were erected, officers were beaten back and pelted with rocks even as they fired tear gas and live ammunition on us . . . if the state had given up immediately we would have been overjoyed, but as they sought to abuse us, beat us, kill us, we knew that there was no other option than to fight back.”

– Solidarity statement from Cairo to Occupy Wall Street, October 24, 2011

 

Avaaz: Imperialist Pimps of Militarism, Protectors of the Oligarchy, Trusted Facilitators of War | Part II

September 11, 2012

Part two of an investigative report by Cory Morningstar

The Avaaz Investigative Report Series 2012 [Further Reading]: Part I • Part II • Part III • Part IV • Part V • Part VI

Avaaz Investigative Report Series 2017 [Further Reading]: Part I • Part II • Part III

 

 Corporate “Green” Pedophilia

After the success of TckTckTck, Havas (a global advertising firm) cut out the middleman (that being the NGO), creating their own NGO named One Young World. One Young World could be defined as predatory corporate pedophilia. On the TakingItGlobal website, under the headline How to Mobilize Youth Globally to Support the Goals of the Rio 2012 Summit [the illusory “green” economy], a IYY HLM (INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR – HIGH LEVEL MEETING) RSVP event is described as follows: “The vast networks represented by AVAAZ, Taking IT Global, Peace Child and One Young World represent an excellent way of building on the momentum of the IYY to promote the Rio+20 goals through online media, advertising and PR – and good, old-fashioned campaigning…. The Rio+20 Summit is as good a moment as any to mark that watershed moment: young people – through their schools, their community groups and their online network are well-placed to support the UN and its member states to explain that transition and embed it in the hearts and minds of the general public. This side meeting will raise the profile and importance of the Rio+20 meeting in the minds of all who attend the IYY HLM – and send them home with new skills and new inspiration to support the UN to achieve a stunning success in Rio in June 2012.” Featured speakers included David Jones (founder/director, One Young World; director, Havas Global Advertising) and Jeremy Heimans (founder/board member of AVAAZ.org; director of Purpose Inc.). At breakneck speed, One Young World is establishing partner organizations throughout the globe (H. W. Bush is an endorser in the One Young World Pittsburgh org). It has also secured a partnership with Association Internationale des Étudiants en Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (AIESEC); present in over 110 countries and territories and with over 82,000 members, AIESEC is the world’s largest student-run organization.

The Commerce of Trust

One must recognize that the non-profit industrial complex, not unlike the oligarchy, retains its power via a constant influx of corporate cash (via foundations). When an NGO becomes as wealthy as the corporations who made such wealth possible, the necessity to funnel the corporate funding through foundations is no longer necessary. Recent examples are Coca-Cola partnering with World Wildlife Fund for $3 million and Nature Conservancy merging with Dow Chemical for a cool $10 million. This does not begin to take into account the money doled out by the US administration to NGOs under the guise of “humanitarianism.” [PR Newswire, WASHINGTON, 24 May 2012, “NGOs welcome Senate leadership in international humanitarian funding; The Senate FY2013 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill provides for $52.1 billion in discretionary spending for the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other international development and humanitarian assistance programs….”]

Today, in 2012, with the recent “approved” invasion and annihilation of Libya, which, prior to the NATO-led invasion, had the highest standard of living in Africa, the imperialist states are frothing at the mouth over the prospects of invading/ occupying Syria under the carefully orchestrated guise of “humanitarian intervention.” The imperialists steal and plunder every last drop of wealth from resource-rich countries – both monetary and cultural, as well as ecological. Of equal importance to the imperialists is protection of the decaying US dollar and Euro and keeping resource-rich countries poor via debt. (Case in point: Libya had no debt. Further, Gaddafi was working toward the introduction of the gold dinar, a single African currency, made by gold, which was to be a “true sharing of the wealth” for the African people that would have resulted in their oil no longer being traded in American or Euro currency, thus liberating them, to some extent, from the chains of imperialism.) If one looks closely, we can witness a steady transformation, well underway within the meticulously maintained, well-greased gears of the propaganda machine – a machine that continues to be refined. The blurring of lines between corporate power, the corporate media complex, the non-profit industrial complex, and the United Nations continues to accelerate, while simultaneously the veil begins to lift.

The Cat is Out of the Bag

In the 21 December 2011 Strategic Culture Foundation article, “A Third-Rate Intelligence Agency for a Failing Super-Power: The CIA’s Global Demise,” the author closes by stating:

“The CIA’s political influence operations around the world are also being exposed every day. Run in tandem with international financier George Soros and his network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and not-for-profit foundations, the CIA’s attempts to foment rebellions through ‘themed revolutions’ and election engineering are becoming better understood, ironically through the media that Soros and the CIA champion the most – social networking. From the streets of Egypt and Syria, where the CIA’s and Soros’s involvement in artificially-created uprisings is no longer a secret, to Russia, Venezuela, Belarus, and China, where political intervention by the CIA and its team of Soros ‘do-gooders’ is now being met with strong opposition, the cat is out of the bag.

 

“While the CIA has for decades enjoyed the luxury of hiding behind NGOs, missionaries, aid workers, and journalists, the Internet has allowed CIA influence networks to be exposed and its agents, shills, and dupes to be identified. Time magazine has named as its ‘Person on the Year’ for 2011 the generic ‘protester.’ However, as the CIA’s worldwide operations become further exposed, the ‘protester’ lauded by Time will no longer be a paid provocateur working for the CIA or Soros – taking orders and money from Human Rights Watch and Global Witness – but one who is genuinely protesting the interference and aggression of the United States. And that protester will be found not only in Cairo, Moscow, Caracas, and Beirut but in New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles.”

The Open Society Institute (renamed in 2011 to Open Society Foundations) is a private operating and grantmaking  foundation founded by George Soros, who remains the chair. Soros is known best as a multibillionaire currency speculator who became known as “the man who broke the bank of England” when he gained one billion (US) in investment profits in a single day on September 16, 1992. Soros is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), created in 1924 by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. The CFR is essentially the promotional arm of the ruling elite in the US with most all US policy initiated and written by the exclusive membership within the CFR. Soros has deep ties to the Trilateral Commission, which is the international counterpart of the CFR created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski (who worked with CIA operant Gloria Steinman) and McGeorge Bundy. Soros also is privy to the exclusive Bilderberg Group, which functions behind closed doors. The Bilderberg Group is an offshoot of the CFR, founded by David Rockefeller; Dean Rusk, former head of Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph Johnson, head of Carnegie Endowment; John J. McCloy, Ford Foundation Chair, and some notables of the European oligarchy. Most revealing, Soros is an avid supporter of Occupy Wall Street.

New York City Occupy Wall Street Embraces Otpor and Bombing for Peace

 “Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.” — Étienne de La Boétie, Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (Discours de la servitude volontaire), c. 1553

Murray N. Rothbard asks, “Since despotic rule is against the interests of the bulk of the population, how then does this consent come about? Again, La Boétie highlights the point that this consent is engineered, largely by propaganda beamed at the populace by the rulers and their intellectual apologists. The devices – of bread and circuses, of ideological mystification – that rulers today use to gull the masses and gain their consent, remain the same as in La Boétie’s days. The only difference is the enormous increase in the use of specialized intellectuals in the service of the rulers.”

There is little doubt that if he were alive today, Étienne de La Boétie would consider the non-profit industrial complex an integral component, indeed the intellectual apologists, of the oligarchy. La Boétie wrote, “This is the establishment, as it were the permanent and continuing purchase, of a hierarchy of subordinate allies, a loyal band of retainers, praetorians, and bureaucrats.” La Boétie considered this factor “the mainspring and the secret of domination, the support and foundation of tyranny.”

The following text contains factual information/evidence obtained from many months of research that undoubtedly will be met with much hostility and resentment by many. Yet, analyzing such information is critical if we are to see the light through our veils and illusions. As only then does the possibility for a real influence and positive outcome arise from orchestrated events that are being engineered with a false exterior to serve corporate and imperialist interests. The very forces we claim to oppose continue to successfully reabsorb us into the very system destroying us – the very system we must starve, struggle against and ultimately dismantle. This is where we fail. If we continue to deny these truths rather than confront them, our collective denial will serve as the instrument for securing our own annihilation.

This is NOT TO SAY that there are not legitimate Occupy Wall Street (OWS) sects that have broken off from the core, neoliberal-funded and dominated OWS reform movement.

A reconnaissance of corporate funding (via foundations), coupled with a rock solid understanding of history, is vital. The understanding of how our movements have been financed, designed and controlled by the forces we seek to oppose, of the very sequence of events that has led society to the present moment, is vital if we are to transcend the barbed wire barriers that keep us enslaved within the system.

It should come as little surprise that MoveOn.org, founder of Avaaz with Res Publica, heavily promoted Occupy Wall Street. (Both MoveOn and Res Publica will be discussed further in this report.)

Image: The Otpor/Canvas logo as prominently featured on the New York City General Assembly website

“Youth enamored with lofty, naïve notions of ‘freedom’ sold to them by corporate-fascist funded NGOs were brought into the streets to create chaos and division which was then capitalized on by covert political and even military maneuvering by the West and its proxy forces.” – 2011-Year of the Dupe

From 2011-Year of the Dupe: February 17, 2011: “The London-based National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) calls for a Libyan “Day of Rage” [note the hijacked term from the real revolutionary Weather Underground movement] to match the US-destabilization rhetoric used in Tunisia and Egypt. The NFSL has been backed by the CIA-MI6 since the 80’s and had made multiple attempts to overthrow Qaddafi’s government with both terrorist attacks and armed insurrection.

 Note the “EnoughGaddafi.com” signs. EnoughGaddafi.com’s webmaster is listed on the US State Department’s Movements.org as the “Twitter” to follow.

“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

“The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED): “The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.

“It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous foundations, organizations, and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. As we will see, preparations for the “Arab Spring” and the global campaign that is now encroaching on both Russia and China, as predicted in February 2011’s “The Middle East & then the World,” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

“December 3-5, 2008: Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman, attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

“Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO ‘Otpor’ who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a ‘well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.’ After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.” [Source: 2011-Year of the Dupe]

Foreign Policy Magazine (a major organ of the Council on Foreign Relations promoting globalization) would report in their article, “Revoluton U,” that CANVAS assisted protesters in the ‘Rose Revolution’ of Georgia, the ‘Orange Revolution’ of the Ukraine, and is currently working with networks from Belarus, Myanmar (Burma), all across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as with activists in North Korea, and 50 other countries.”

 Above screenshot: Occupy Wall Street Screenshot featuring an Avaaz destabilization campaign against the Syrian Government. Note the red Otpor logo (fist).

 

Above screenshot: Earth.350.org.blog: Leading up to the 15 October 2011 Occupy movement, Rockefellers 350.org’s past presenters include Ivan Marovic, founder of US-funded Otpor (22 September2011), Srdja Popovic founding member of Otpor and Slobodan Dinovic, one of Otpor’s original organizers (29 September 29 2011).

Like the Egyptian “Revolution,” the change in venue and transition of key players we witness today has been anything but spontaneous. And although it is tragic that most of the entire globe has been conned, far worse is the fact that global society as a whole, with “the left” movement at the forefront, continues to swallow and perpetuate the lies that the continued “uprisings” of the countries targeted for destabilization are spontaneous revolutions. The logic being, if the revolutions were spontaneous uprisings, then the Occupy movement was also spontaneous; arising from the people, not orchestrated by the ruling classes. “The left,” in an act of insanity and denial, has committed itself to supporting what the ruling classes, via corporate media and a network of Soros-funded NGOs, have framed as “revolutionaries” in sovereign states under strategic invasion, while in reality, these so-called revolutionaries are foreign-backed insurgents/terrorists, including the CIA-created Al-Qaeda terrorist cell, which the US now acknowledges publicly as having partnered with.

The “progressive left,” in order to save face, has sided with the 1% they claim to oppose – millions, no doubt, unwittingly. Well-intentioned citizens who believe themselves to be progressive in their ideologies, who believe they are of sound intelligence, continue to cling to this position as volumes of evidence dispels all myths of Gaddafi having turned on his own people. If tens of thousands must die in order for the “left” EuroAmericans to feel good about themselves, then so be it. No one wants to be the dupe. The oligarchy understood this unequivocally. And while Occupy preached the virtues of non-violent direct action, the imperialist countries advanced their destabilizations, invasions and occupations in the Middle East and Africa at an unparalleled speed – murdering, some estimate, as many as 100,000 Libyans in the process. The silence of dissent was deafening. Very few of us have despaired at our complicity; most people simply turn a blind eye to the truth so they don’t have to feel bad about their coffee shop assent.

The Occupy Wall Street “movement” website www.15October.net was registered and paid for on 12 July 2011 by Paulina Arcos, spouse of Francisco Carrión Mena, the Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations.

Meaning, by 12 July 2011, certain individuals were aware of, planned and banked on “spontaneous” global occupations that would take place 15 October 2011 – long before the rest of us knew anything. The address provided for the October15.net domain is identical to that of Francisco Carrión Mena’s address at the UN. One can safely assume that the credit card used to pay for the domain was a United Nations corporate credit card; if it were Arcos’s personal credit card, the domain registration would display her home residence address rather than the UN address. On 19 October 2011, the 15October.net domain registration was changed to a (web) domain privacy service that protects the registered owner’s information and other relevant information. [13 October 2011, Occupation & Infiltration: Questions Regarding 15October.net http://thewrongkindofgreen.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/pertinent-questions-regarding-the-websitecampaign-www-15october-net/]

The WikiLeaks Connection

Santiago Carrión has founded and/or partnered with, and/or is affiliated with the following organizations:

• 15 M
• 15October.net
• EuroRevolution.net
• Future Press
• Roar Magazine
• Take the Square
• The Global Square
• United for Global Change (May 12)
• US Day of Rage
• WikiLeaks Central
• WikiLeaks World

 

The son of Arcos and Carrión is Santiago Carrión, a partner/collaborator of Europe’s TakeTheSquare.net, partner/affiliate of Roar Magazine (Reflections on a Revolution), founder of EuropeanRevolution.net, FuturePress, 15October.net, United for Global Change (also known as May 12), The Global Square, and a writer specializing in WikiLeaks cable analysis. [From WL Central (the Wikileaks-endorsed news site): “We are Pedro Noel and Santiago Carrión Arcos, two Philosophy graduates from different origins, who met while studying in Spain. We were always concerned with politics and human rights, so when Wikileaks broke into the scene we decided to contribute by writing cable analysis…. From November 2010 we have been working on a daily basis in different fields of Internet activism and journalism anonymously. We have decided, however, to become public. The reasons are many, our personal security being the main one…. Recently, we have also collaborated in running the @wlfind Twitter account, hoping to provide a complete record for findings in the latest crowd-source initiative #wlfind, started by Wikileaks.]

Santiago Carrión’s associate, Pedro Noel, is a Brazilian Internet media activist known in the Romanian media as “the man who made 700 thousand Spaniards take the streets.” In 2011, along with other internet activists, researchers and volunteers, Pedro Noel started the project The Global Square in partnership with Delft University of Technology and its project Tribler. Roarmag.org website lists the founders of The Global Square as volunteers of the following organizations: Take the Square, United for Global Change, 15october.net, European Revolution, and Reflections on a Revolution (ROAR). Note that all of these organizations are founded by or affiliated with Carrión.

On 5 November 2011 at 10:04pm, WikiLeaks tweeted: “The Global Square: an online platform for our movement,” citing the link: http://wlcentral.org/node/2328.

On 16 February 2012, Truth-out announced that Wikileaks is now “dabbing” in social media: “Wikileaks is dabbling in social networking. In March, the whistleblower website will launch its “Global Square” project – which Wikileaks calls the, “first massive decentralized social network in the history of the Internet.”

In truth, we have approximately 2 people, openly identifiable (who, until recently worked in complete anonymity), at the helm of designing and shaping the entire global occupy “movement” into the ultimate platform for the accumulation, coordination and dissemination of information. A platform “where people of all nations can come together as equals to participate in the coordination of collective actions and the formulation of common goals and aspirations” (bold emphasis added).

With a massive throng of WikiLeaks supporters that has only grown stronger with the attack on WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is there anyone, in any spectrum of the left, who won’t trust Carrión’s, Noel’s and Wikipedia’s Global Square project? While steadfastly upholding lost values with which the left wishes to be associated, Assange has been vilified by the very forces that the left opposes. Thus, Assange has embodied impenetrable hero, if not martyr, status. Could this be the most brilliant psyops ever conducted via internet technology, utilizing the world’s leading technocrats and global social media – or has WikiLeaks simply been infiltrated? Will the Global Square serve to be the ultimate coup de grâce on a society both manipulated and intoxicated by the non-profit industrial complex? Interestingly, this infrastructure very much follows the strategy behind the Climate Action Network (CAN), co-founded by Michael Oppenheimer (Environmental Defense Fund) in 1988, which successfully reigned in and presided over a global network of environmental organizations, thus ensuring that no movement would ever threaten economic growth. Occupy/15M, now transcending into The Global Square, is quickly being established as the official clearinghouse for all dissent, direction, communication – and as the global technological superpower for social engineering, soft power destabilizations and a cooling mechanism to keep the public passive and controlled.

One major theme within all of the aforementioned organizations has been the persistent framing of imperialist destabilizations as revolutions and uprisings, prior to and during the unprovoked annihilation of Libya, and the heavily financed destabilization now well underway in Syria. [Case in point: On 15 June 2012, Take the Square posts the article Syria Sectarian Divide Takes Alarming Turn, which states: “A perpetual and repugnant war is likely to replace the collective aspirations for equality, freedom and democracy that fuelled the non-violent uprising nearly 15 months ago.”] The demonization of Gaddafi, Assad, and other governments of sovereign, resource-rich states in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, has been key, thus mirroring and amplifying the very sentiments put forward by the US State Department. On the WikiLeaks Central website we find several Avaaz petitions. Most striking are the headlines: Stop the Massacre – Save the Libyans and To the UN Security Council, both posted on 03/22/2011. The second highlighted the Avaaz petition demanding a no-fly zone be imposed on Libya.

Carrión and Noel perhaps should be considered the Marovic, Popovic (Otpor/Canvas) adaptation for Europe. Whether Santiago Carrión’s and Pedro Noel’s intentions (along with many others) were or are sincere, whether they are naive patsies or CIA operatives – matters little. The global Occupy movement was the psyops needed, and brilliantly executed, that would build a cohesion of silence within the left against the deliberate destabilization of the Middle East and Africa. For the “revolutionaries” cannot be wrong. The “revolutionaries” are united as one. To admit that the revolutions were strategically set into motion and financed by the ruling plutocrats is to admit we’ve been co-opted by the very forces we seek to oppose – yet again.

And the need of imperialists and corporate interests to expand their growing corral of such recruits teamed with social media/marketing executives extraordinaire has never been greater:

“Pressing for unchallenged hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, Washington keeps the populist regimes in Latin America under permanent pressure. Outwardly, the U.S. Administration pledges not to resort to military force to displace the ALBA governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or Cuba, but in reality Washington’s efforts to undermine them are a constant background of the continent’s political picture. The activity began under president G. Bush and shows no signs of subsiding under president Obama. Supposedly, plans are being devised in the White House that a series of color revolutions will erupt across Latin America in 2013-2014 and derail the continent’s advancement towards tighter integration in the security and other spheres. As the fresh experience of Libya showed with utmost clarity, Washington’s new brand of color revolutions will – in contrast to the former coups which used to be accompanied with outpourings of pacifist rhetoric – involve ferocious fighting and massive fatalities.” — 4 February 2012: Destabilizing Arsenals Concealed in US Embassies. Emphasis in original.]

And as Avaaz coordinated the OWS live stream in 2011, perhaps one single tweet is the most revealing of all.

An OWS “tweet” to over 86,000 followers on 20 October 2011 exclaims: “Congrats Libya! Your struggles against the #Gadhafi regime is [sic] over. Let’s hope for a bright future #solidarity.” @OccupyWallSt states it is an “official account” of https://occupywallst.org, followed by 86,347 as of that date (155,565 by 26 March 2012). The “tweet” echoed the sentiments of the imperialist states and “leaders” such as Hillary Clinton, and demonstrated a total upside down ideological pandemonium by a so-called “leftist” movement. This sentiment of “congratulations” over the horrific murder of the brother leader of a sovereign nation who refused to abandon his people was “retweeted” by over 100 “followers.” Yoshie Furuhashi summed it up best via Twitter: “IMHO, capitalists have nothing to fear from #OccupyWallStreet, who can’t tell imperialist regime change from popular revolution.”

Jump forward to the present. In a 6 July 2012 article titled SYRIA: Wikileaks – hard at work for NATO, Jorge Capelán wrote:

“With the decision to commit this act of psy-warfare against Syria, Assange himself may have provoked doubt as regards the seriousness of his request for political asylum. Publishing 2 million e-mails is not an overnight action. It takes weeks and months of preparation, not to mention the time required to establish appropriate contacts with international media.”

It would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of the CIA working in tandem with or within the United Nations (Carrión) or WikiLeaks when it has been documented that Kofi Annan, the United Nations “Peacekeeper” was handpicked by the CIA (30 March 2012, Kofi Annan: black skin, white mask].

Consider that in June 2011 LulzSec claimed responsibility for an attack on both the FBI and CIA websites. Flash forward to March 2012 to find that the leader of the hacker group LulzSec (affiliated with Anonymous) was exposed as an FBI operant.

Video: Uploaded 1 August 2011, the group Anonymous promotes the Global Occupy Demonstration to take place on 15 October 2011:

http://youtu.be/RPd25yDiOwU

Veterans Today, Military and Foreign Affairs Journal, 23 January 2011:

“It is illuminating that none of Assange’s document dumps have revealed any notable scandals involving Great Britain or Israel. No US public figures have had to resign because of anything Wikileaks has done. No major ongoing covert operation or highly placed agent of influence has been blown. After all these months, there are still no US indictments against Assange, even though we know that a US grand jury will readily indict a ham sandwich if the US Attorney demands it. If the CIA had wanted to silence Assange, they could have subjected him to the classic kidnapping aka rendition, meaning that he would have been beaten, drugged, and carted off to wake up in a black site prison in Egypt, Poland, or Guantanamo Bay. Otherwise, the CIA could have had recourse to the usual extralegal wetwork [not sic; euphemism for murder or assassination]. We must also assume that the new US Cybercommand with its vast resources would have little trouble shutting down the Wikileaks mirror sites, no matter how numerous they might be. The same goes for Anonymous and other flanking organizations of Wikileaks. But these considerations are purely fantastic. Assange emerges today as the pampered darling and golden boy of The New York Times, Der Spiegel. The Guardian, El Pais – in short, of the entire Anglo-American official media Wurlitzer. He reclines today in baronial splendor in the country house of a well-connected retired British officer who should be quizzed by the media about his ties to British intelligence. The radical-chic world, from Bianca Jagger to Michael Moore, is at Assange’s feet.” — Webster Griffin Tarpley, in Nihilists of The World Unite: Wikileaks Is The “Cognitive Infiltration” Operation Demanded by Cass Sunstein

Unidentified “Freedom of Speech”

The iNEWP – Freedom of Speech (formed in 2010) is yet another new highly suspect “news media” outlet where one can find highlighted a recent Avaaz destabilization campaign against the Morales (MAS) government of Bolivia. It lists its affiliates as Anonymous, The Occupy Movement (note the red Otpor/Canvas fist above the featured Avaaz campaign in the screenshot prior), The Sun Maker, TesfaNews, and VVVPR (VVV Public Relations: BPR + Guerrilla Marketing). This once very public information (accessed 30 March 2012) has since been removed from the iNEWP website. One must wonder how an organization such as iNEWP – Freedom of Speech solidifies and retains a partnership with an Anonymous group (that being Anonymous), and how the Occupy Movement has partnered with this organization without a democratic vote of its occupiers, considering the Occupy Movement claims there are no leaders. One may also question why iNEWP – Freedom of Speech uses a (web) domain privacy service that protects the registered owner’s private information, offers first names only of their international staff, and purposely neglects to offer any information as to who they are funded by. Further, one must ask oneself exactly if any entity within or outside of the Occupy Movement is paying VVV Public Relations for their services. There is one item of interest disclosed in the domain registration of iNEWP and that is the address listed as 666 NY, New York. This should be considered an inside joke whereby they are mocking the masses. They are playing with us.

 “But there is one state function which, if fully privatised across the world, would make the profits made even from essentials such as health care and education look like peanuts. That is the most basic and essential state function of all, indeed the whole raison d’etre for the state: security.” – Dan Glazebrook

And where consumerism made the plutocrats monetarily rich in the 20th century, the 21st century riches will flow from privatized security. One can safely assume the Occupy Movement (promoted heavily by the Democratic Party and the Rockefeller/Soros NGOs such as MoveOn – sister organization of Avaaz) will assist in advancing “the imperative” to expand privatized security [See Council on Foreign Relations: Armies Without States: The Privatization of Security]and the “need” to override civil liberties and freedoms by introducing fascist censorship and legislation; the most recent example being martial law itself in the U.S. The plans that we witness being unveiled today are years, if not decades, in the making. Nothing is left to chance.

15M – Europe’s Occupy Movement

In Europe we find the “revolutionary movement” 15M who identifies itself as “global Occupy/15M movements.” They are heavily promoted by a slew of NGOs from the Soros network (one being that of Global Voices, whose sponsors include the Ford Foundation and the Soros Open Society Institute) to Take the Square, whose partners include US Day of Rage (this terminology was discussed earlier in this report; it is terminology we continue to witness, as in Libya, being co-opted by NGOs funded by globalists). US Day of Rage (a finance reform organization founded by Alexa O’Brien that seeks to distract by directing their followers to believe in the US electorate, marketing the phrase One citizen. One dollar. One vote. O’Brien also is identified as a founder of Occupy Wall Street by Wired as well as a reporter for WikiLeaks Central.) US Day of Rage lists its partners, all promoting 15M, as: EuroRevolution (over 30,000 Facebook followers), Anonymous (over 300,000 twitter followers, and whose logo bears uncanny resemblance to the logo shared by the United Nations), Roar Mag, WikiLeaks Central, and Take the Square – all founded by and/or affiliated with (with the probable exception of Anonymous, whose primary focus is the highlighting/promotion of #OWS) Santiago Carrión. It is worth noting that the movement is also referred to as the Spanish Revolution. The creator of this web platform is none other than Chris Moya, software developer and author for the Soros Global Voices network.

And where did the 15M movement originate? Was the 15M campaign also founded in part by Santiago Carrión, or as in many cases, was this simply a case of co-opting a legitimate concept from near inception in order to corral it, thus absorbing it into the NGO matrix where it can be controlled. The following facts speak volumes.

15M.cc was launched in September of 2011 with the intent not to represent the movement but rather to serve as the umbrella for data/history/projects organized (past, present and future) on behalf of the 15 May 2011 mass demonstration/movement organized by Democracia real YA! (Real Democracy NOW! or DRY!). It is publicly stated that there are 3 key people behind the 15M.cc initiative: an entrepreneur/developer and self-described “founding father” of P2P (peer to peer) social networking (Pablo Soto), a filmmaker (Stéphane M. Grueso) and an expert in marketing, design and journalism (Patricia Horrillo).

AOL/Time Warner’s Huffington Post “explains” 15M on 25 May 2011 (see excerpt below) while Soros’s Global Voices highlighted 15M on 17 May 2011. This mass demonstration was also referred to by these outlets as the #spanishrevolution. On 5 July 2011, leading “progressive left media” outlet/Soros shill, Democracy Now! really lays it on in an interview with DRY founder Olmo Gálvez in Madrid, Spain. Amy Goodman continually employed specific language such as “grassroots movement” and “crowd-funding platform” – phrases that provoke the idea of credibility and legitimacy behind the idea of spontaneous uprisings rather than corporate engineered/managed venting mechanisms. [For more information on Democracy Now! Read: DEMOCRACY NOW! AND “PROGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA”: CHEERLEADERS FOR IMPERIALISM AND WAR.]

The Huffington Post’s vague description on who is behind the #spanishrevolution is pitiful yet revealing:

“The #spanishrevoution is an internet movement that was started by leading figures on the internet, including top bloggers and internet entrepreneurs, to harness the distress of the Spanish people into action ahead of this past weekend’s elections.

 

Some of the most important figures/initiators of the 15M movement are Fabio Gándara (who has been part of the movement since the beginning), Jon Aguirre Such (DRY’s spokesperson) and Olmo Gálvez (whom El País calls a social networking “crack”). It’s interesting to point out that all three of them are quite young, between 26 and 30, and didn’t know each other until shortly before 15M….

 

As I already mentioned, most of the initiators didn’t know each other at the beginning and only met in person a couple of weeks before the 15M event. The main platforms enabling them to join forces were social networks like Facebook and Tuenti, and of course platforms like Twitter and hundreds (or even thousands) of blogs that supported the movements and spread the word. The sit-in at Plaza del Sol even has its own TV channel, with a mind-blowing 11 million accumulated views so far. Around 45 million people live in Spain.” (Emphasis added)

RoarMag.org disclosed one key player while stating that the other key the player wished to remain anonymous:

“Fabio Gándara, the man at the origin of it all, a 26-year old lawyer, started the social mobilization project with two friends: Eric Perez and another person who prefers to remain anonymous.”

Although Huffington tells us that it “was started by leading figures on the internet, including top bloggers and internet entrepreneurs,” the author only discloses three names: Fabio Gándara, Aguirre Such and Olmo Galvez. Gándara is a campaigner for Change.org – a for-profit NGO. Gándara states:

“Before joining Change.org as campaign organizer, I worked as a lawyer in the prestigious law firm Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, in the areas of Spanish and European Public Law. I also have been working as an activist in a Spanish grassroots organisation, Democracia Real Ya, seed of the #Spanishrevolution.”

The Commerce of Exploitation: Change.org

“And nobody’s making more money from online petitions than Change.org. I wonder how many people visiting a change.org petition know that despite its dot-org name, the organization is a for-profit lead generation business. Just take a look at their partners page, and you’ll see what they do…. Change.org is being deliberately deceitful through the use of the change.org name. I’d suspect that the average change.org user does not know that Change.org is a for-profit corporation, and that the corporation plans on using the contact information being provided to them to earn revenue.” — Clay Johnson, Information Diet

Change.org (based in San Francisco, CA), founded in 2005, was launched on 7 February 2007 by current CEO Ben Rattray (with a background in economics), with the support of current CTO Mark Dimas and Adam Cheyer (co-founder of Siri software and director of engineering in the iPhone group at Apple). As of February 2012, the site has 100 employees with offices on 4 continents. By the end of 2012, Rattray “plans to have offices in 20 countries and to operate in several more languages, including Arabic and Chinese.” It was reported on 5 April 2012 that Change.org hit 10 million members, and is currently the fastest-growing social action platform on the web. They are currently receiving 500 new petitions per day. [Source: Wikipedia]

The founding Change.org team of advisors include Darren Haas, developer of financial trading and currency exchange software with Euronet Worldwide; Sundeep Ahuja, founder/product manager/marketing/strategy advisor/investor/co-founder/president at blissmo, Kiva.org, indiegogo, DailyFeats, Sparked.com, richrelevance, friendput, MySpace, and an actor, to boot; and Joe Greenstein, software developer and co-founder and CEO of Flixster.

Change.org is a member of George Soros’s Media Consortium. Change.org is subtle yet clear in their affiliations. Ample media coverage provided by Media Consortium partners and social media/tech sites, etc. Change.org seldom fails to mention the other effective organizations – Avaaz.org, Sumofus.org, and 38degrees.org.uk.

On the Change.org partner page, the corporation states they have hundreds of partners, yet only 5 are made public. Yet they make no secret of their expanding empire:

“We’re Hiring!: Change.org is a rapidly expanding and profitable social venture, growing by more than a million new members a month by empowering people across the globe to win social action campaigns on a wide range of issues such as human rights, global poverty, and environmental protection. Our current partners include hundreds of the world’s largest nonprofits, including Amnesty International, Sierra Club, Human Rights Campaign, and the United Nations Foundation.”

Change.org  is the darling of corporate media powerhouse TIME magazine, which having named change.org founder Ben Rattray, as one of TIME’s, 100 Most Influential People of 2012 while profiling of Olmo Gálvez in TIME Magazine’s 2011 Person of the Year – The Protestor. Goodman (of Democracy Now!) describes Gálvez as “a young entrepreneur with experience in several countries….” Such corporate-controlled entities lend credibility and legitimacy to “leaders,” movements and ideologies that secure and protect corporate power. Such well-greased mechanisms are essential in establishing a collective consent to the hegemony of the ruling oligarchy. Other recent instances of corporate-sponsored NGO “leaders” that have been praised by the likes of TIME and foundation-funded “progressive” media include “green” capitalist Al Gore, who is also deemed by TIME as one of the 100 Most Influential, while Rockefeller’s lovechild Bill McKibben seems to have taken up symbolic residence at the studio of Democracy Now! In a patriarchal society, charismatic fellows such as Gore and McKibben are key members of a manufactured, managerial elite, building global public acceptance for the illusory green economy – formerly known as industrialized capitalism – the goal being to protect capitalism, thereby protecting the current structures at all costs, by any means necessary, by every means available.

Francisco Polo is now director of Change.org Spain, after founding Actuable, a Spanish-based campaign platform that merged with Change.org in 2011. Prior to this, Polo was coordinator of Amnesty International in Barcelona. On 7 October 2011, techPresident reports the following in an article titled Change.org’s International Move:

“This was a crucial night for the protestors calling themselves ‘indignados,’ who had descended upon Puerta del Sol on May 15 intent on staying until national elections in Spain. Frustrated with a political system they feel does not work for them, many of them out of work, they stayed to protest in defiance of a national law that prohibits discussion of electoral politics so close to the elections. But it was also a crucial night for Actuable, an online petitions platform then just a few months old. Protesters wanted to tell Spanish elections authority, the Junta Electoral Central, that they had a right to be heard. While they rallied in Madrid despite the electoral rules, they also went online – to Actuable, where a petition asserting their right to demonstrate, even immediately before an election, collected 200,000 signatures….

 

“Actuable co-founder Francisco Polo told techPresident in a recent interview. ‘It was an unprecedented way to empower people.’ It’s hard to know what impact the petition actually had, but the chance to see use by the indignados was a moment in the sun for Actuable. Founded last year, Actuable was always intended to operate in the style of Change.org – which recently acquired the Madrid-based platform. Now it is a new international presence for Change.org, and part of the company’s new plans to expand globally….

 

“Polo is now director of Change.org Spain, and Actuable will be rebranded with Change.org’s colors over the next few months….

 

“A company spokesman says that the two platforms will be completely merged by 2012, with languages and campaigns localized for each visitor. Actuable’s 720,000-some-odd members will be rolled into Change.org’s user base, which already grows – or so the company claims – by about 400,000 users a month.

 

“Actuable rolling into Change.org comes as ‘indignados’ emerge in Mexico City, and one of our own commenters points us to student protesters advocating for education reform in Chile.”

One must ask oneself if these European organizations founded by Carrión, with deep UN connections, are involved in the US Day of Rage campaign. Adbusters (originator of Occupy Wall Street, announcing it 12 June 2012, one day prior to the registration (via UN) of the 15Octber.net website) features 15M in their June 2012 issue in an article titled Spain’s Indignados, written by Marta Sánchez at, none other than, ROARmag.org. The article focuses exclusively on the 15M movement. Almost from inception, www.15October.net has been publicly affiliated with Adbusters in videos (25 September 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3X2VFruLM) and other branding/marketing campaigns while Anonymous has also actively promoted it (15 August 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPd25yDiOwU). Under the Adbusters website link “Get Involved,” Adbusters recommends going to the website Takethesquare.net “for international perspective.”

The founder of US Day of Rage (and Occupy Wall Street) cites four principles:

1. Non-Violence
2. Principles before Party – US Day of Rage will never endorse, finance, or lend our name to any candidate or party.
3. Volunteer – Every US Day of Rage organizational committee on the state, city, and federal level should be entirely self-supporting, declining outside contributions from any political party, association, or candidate. US Day of Rage is not a money making operation. We are volunteers.
4. Autonomous Except in Matters Affecting the Whole – We do not support, for example, violations to our principle of non-violence. USDayofRage.org is here to help facilitate city and state level organization, and to organize the federal protest at the US Capitol.

And although volunteers of US Day of Rage are told to decline outside contributions, this did not stop the founder’s other venture, Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Wall Street affiliates, from accepting $3.6 million from George Soros. Although some media found this interesting enough to cover, it was of little interest to the Occupy Movement itself, who downplayed the connection or ignored it altogether. Soros gave $1.1 million to MoveOn.org (founder of Avaaz) and tossed $8,900.00 to Rockefeller’s 350.org. [October 14, 2011]

When organizations set up Twitter accounts, it is always revealing to see who has been added “to follow” first and foremost as this demonstrates their closest affiliations. In the case of 15M, it is important to note Take the square (@takethesquare) was the sixth account to be “followed” by @15M_cc twitter upon registration, with the first three chosen to follow being that of the founders of original 15M concept: (1) Pablo Soto, @pabloMP2P (2) Patricia Horrillo, @patrihorrillo (3) Stéphane M. Grueso, @fanetin (4) Acampada Sol TL, @acampadasolTL (5) tomalosbarrios, @tomalosbarrios (6) Take the square @takethesquare: “Tweeting from the #spanishrevolution to connect our struggle with people all around the world. Global problems, global uprising. https://takethesquare.net”

[For more information on 15M within Latin America (including Periodismociudadano.com), read the investigative report titled FUNDACIONES GLOBALISTAS y ONGs -15M.]

 

Next: Part III

 

[Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation, Counterpunch, Political Context, Canadians for Action on Climate Change and Countercurrents. Her writing has also been published by Bolivia Rising and Cambio, the official newspaper of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. You can follow her on Twitter @elleprovocateur]

 

Avaaz: Imperialist Pimps of Militarism, Protectors of the Oligarchy, Trusted Facilitators of War | Part I

September 10, 2012

Part one of an investigative report by Cory Morningstar

Avaaz Investigative Report Series 2012 [Further Reading]: Part II • Part III • Part IV • Part V • Part VI

Avaaz Investigative Report Series 2017 [Further Reading]: Part I • Part II • Part III

 

“I wish you a refreshing bath of conscience, I wish that you may be able to try out looking at others eye to eye, I wish that the spring of truth makes life more humane for you.” – Excerpt from the profound message to Avaaz by poet Gabriel Impaglione of Argentina

The Art of Social Engineering | The Art of Social Genocide

Image: U.S. President Barack Obama with Avaaz co-founder and former U.S. Representative Tom Perriello

The Ivy League bourgeoisie who sit at the helm of the non-profit industrial complex will one day be known simply as charismatic architects of death. Funded by the ruling class oligarchy, the role they serve for their funders is not unlike that of corporate media. Yet, it appears that global society is paralyzed in a collective hypnosis – rejecting universal social interests, thus rejecting reason, to instead fall in line with the position of the powerful minority that has seized control, a minority that systematically favours corporate interests.

This investigative report examines the key founders of Avaaz, as well as other key sister organizations affiliated with Avaaz who, hand in hand with the Rockefellers, George Soros, Bill Gates and other powerful elites, are meticulously shaping global society by utilizing and building upon strategic psychological marketing, soft power, technology and social media – shaping public consensus, thus acceptance, for the illusory “green economy” and a novel sonata of 21^st century colonialism. As we are now living in a world that is beyond dangerous, society must be aware of, be able to critically analyze, and ultimately reject the new onslaught of carefully orchestrated depoliticization, domestication of populace, propaganda and misinformation that is being perpetrated and perpetuated by the corporate elite and the current power structures that support their agenda. The non-profit industrial complex must be understood as a mainspring and the instrument of power, the very support and foundation of imperial domination.

Within part I of this investigative report:

• The Simulacrum
• Modus Operandi: The 21st Century NGO
• 2004: The Soft Power Imperative | 2011: Mission Accomplished
• Introduction: The Non-profit Industrial Complex: Imperialist Pimps of Militarism, Protectors of the Oligarchy, Trusted Facilitators of War
• Historical Amnesia

 

Part II:

• Corporate “Green” Pedophilia
• The Commerce of Trust
• The Cat is Out of the Bag
• New York City Occupy Wall Street Embraces Otpor and Bombing for Peace
• The WikiLeaks Connection
• Unidentified “Freedom of Speech”
• 15M – Europe’s Occupy Movement
• The Commerce of Exploitation: Change.org

 

Part III:

• Indoctrinated Subservience & Whitism
• Avaaz’s Founder and MoveOn.org Announce the U.S. “Spring”

 

Part IV:

• Bread and Circuses
• Avaaz: The Emperor of the NGO Network
• Did Libya’s Citizens Demand Foreign Intervention?
• The Avaaz Gate-Keepers
• Avaaz Co-Founder and Executive Director: Ricken Patel
• Avaaz Co-founder: Tom Perriello
• Indoctrination of the Youth is Essential

 

Part V:

• The Humanitarian Industrial Complex: The Ivory Towers Within the Dark Triad
• The Empire
• Avaaz Co-founder: Tom Pravda
• Avaaz Co-founder: David Madden
• Avaaz Co-founder: Eli Pariser
• Avaaz Co-founder: Jeremy Heimans
• Behavioural Change
• May 2010: Avaaz’s Co-Founders Seek a Purpose-Driven Consumer Life | Behavioral Economics
• The Behavioral Economics of Hatred
• Purpose

 

Part VI:

• Res Publica
• Avaaz Founding Board Member: Ben Brandzel
• Purpose: James Slezak
• MoveOn.org
• GetUp
• The 21st Century Social Movements
• The Non-Profit Industrial Complex Finally Finds “Success”
• Avaaz Co-founder: Andrea Woodhouse
• Avaaz Co-founder: Paul Hilder
• The Avaaz “Core Campaign Team Members”

 

+++

The Simulacrum

“As regards the ‘foundations’ created for unlimited general purposes and endowed with enormous resources, their unlimited possibilities are so grave a menace, not only as regards to their own activities and influence but also the numbing effect which they have on private citizens and public bodies, that if they could be clearly differentiated from other forms of voluntary altruistic effort, it would be desirable to recommend their abolition.” – Senator Frank Walsh, 1915

In his Sophist, Plato speaks of two kinds of image-making. The first is a faithful reproduction, a precise copy of the original. The second is distorted intentionally in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers. Plato gives the example of Greek statuary, which was crafted larger on top than on bottom so that viewers from the ground would see it correctly, whereas if they could view it in scale, they would realize it was malformed.

This latter representation serves as a visual art metaphor for the non-profit industrial complex. A semblance of entities, united in an ideology encompassing truth, justice and ethics – which is false. This is the simulacrum, distorted in such a way that it appears accurate unless viewed from the proper angle. This report aims to allow you, the reader, to view the matrix from such an angle. By denying the reliable input of our senses while accepting the non-profit industrial complex’s manipulative constructs of language and “reason,” global society has arrived at a grossly distorted copy of ethics and intrinsic worth – a warped simulacrum of thespian complexity, a vast work of superficial depth.

Modus Operandi: The 21st Century NGO

 “What a cluster-fuck of disinformation this world has become. The sinister forces of greed and avarice are, through consolidation of wealth and power, more powerful than ever. Humankind has a huge uphill battle to wage.” — Comment at How Avaaz is Sponsoring Fake War Propaganda from Syria

The 21^st century NGO is becoming, more and more, a key tool serving the imperialist quest of absolute global dominance and exploitation. Global society has been, and continues to be, manipulated to believe that NGOs are representative of “civil society” (a concept promoted by corporations in the first place). This misplaced trust has allowed the “humanitarian industrial complex” to ascend to the highest position: the missionaries of deity – the deity of the empire.

Modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated and backronymed as “mode of operation.” The term is used to describe someone’s habits or manner of working, their method of operating or functioning. In English, it is frequently shortened to M.O.

The expression is often used in police work when discussing a crime and addressing the methods employed by the perpetrators. It is also used in criminal profiling, where it can help in finding clues to the offender’s psychology. It largely consists of examining the actions used by the individual(s) to execute the crime, prevent its detection and/or facilitate escape. [Source: Wikipedia]

2004: The Soft Power Imperative | 2011: Mission Accomplished

“Existing soft power initiatives and agencies, particularly those engaged in development and strategic communications, must be reinvigorated through increased funding, human resources and prioritization. Concurrently, the U.S. government must establish goals, objectives and metrics for soft power initiatives. Furthermore, the U.S. government can better maximize the effectiveness of soft power instruments and efforts through increased partnerships with NGOs. By providing humanitarian and development assistance in areas typically inaccessible to government agencies, NGOs are often able to access potential extremist areas before the government can establish or strengthen diplomatic, developmental or military presence, including intelligence.” — Joseph S. Nye, former US assistant secretary of defense, June 2004

The non-profit industrial complex represents a rich portfolio of soft power tools readily available to the ruling elite. Today we witness the near complete metamorphosis of the complex having successfully morphed into the absolute idyllic clearinghouse for the collective and coordinated imperialist agenda shared by a broad spectrum of government institutions, dominated by the financial industrial complex, corporate power and hegemonic rule – all under the guise of a global conscience reflective of “civil society” via self-appointed NGOs.

Joseph S. Nye (quoted above) is a former US assistant secretary of defense, former chairman of the US National Intelligence Council and professor at Harvard University. A world renowned scholar of international relations, Nye co-founded the liberal institutionalist approach to international relations, theorizing that states and other international powers possess more or less “soft power” (a term first coined in the 1980s). In a 2004 article titled The Rising Power of NGO’s, Nye peddled his soft-power theory as the quintessential element that must be employed in order to protect the American public from “terrorists.” Of course, Nye neglected to include the fact that the true “terrorists” are those who hold power within our very own EuroAmerican governments/establishments, waging violence upon sovereign, resource-rich states. It’s an easy sell as it enables one to conveniently deny their assent to (our own) state-sponsored terrorism and continued collective and voluntary servitude as well-behaved, rapturous consumers under the influence of American (non) culture.

If a state can present its power as legitimate in the eyes of others, it will encounter far less resistance to its foreign policies and agendas. Further, if the Western states’ (non) culture and (illusory) ideology are desirable, other states will more willingly acquiesce. This is an area where the NGOs excel. They do so by never referring to their own “leaders” as dictators or fascists, yet more than willing to apply these derogatory terms to leaders targeted for regime change. Simultaneously, while reporting on human rights abuses or environmental violations in states exploited by industrialized capitalism, the NGOs neglect to comment on their own states’ escalating assault on “democracy.” Most important, the non-profit industrial complex certainly does not address the fact that industrialized and globalized capitalism (imposed by hegemonic rule) is the crux of most all suffering and ongoing crisis in the very states they criticize and deem culpable. A continuous subtle undertone of support/belief in their own states’ democracy is achieved simply by never opening a dialogue on the legitimacy of power structures within their own (imperialist) states.

In essence, soft power is “the universalism of a country’s culture and its ability to establish a set of favourable rules and institutions that govern areas of international activity [that] are critical sources of power” or, more simply, the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce and rather than using force or money as a means of persuasion. This is where states such as Bolivia (and Libya until its recent annihilation) are very real threats to the American superpower. States such as Bolivia and Libya (past-tense) serve the people to advance themselves to a more enlightened, more democratic existence in a very real sense, while democracy and freedoms in the Americas mean little more than “freedom to shop” and buy as much sweatshop junk as one can(not) afford. If corporate-owned/controlled media and corporate-funded/controlled educational institutes actually educated the American public on intellectual enlightenment and progressive advances in other countries – Americans would truly wonder what the fuck was going on. Rather, we are kept in the dark; doped up by big pharma and stupefied by Big Brother, all while such states and leaders are continually vilified and demonized in the media (both corporate and foundation-funded “progressive”), all while NGOs remain silent on their own accelerating fascist governments. American “exceptionalism” is, undoubtedly, the biggest lie ever told sold.

Introducing the Non-Profit Industrial Complex: Imperialist Pimps of Militarism, Protectors of the Oligarchy, Trusted Facilitators of War

Packaging – Uncle Sam is the best in packaging and selling illusions

 “I am convinced that some NGOs, especially those funded by the U.S.AID, are the fifth column of espionage in Bolivia, not only in Bolivia, but also in all of Latin America.” — Evo Morales, February 2012

In 2001, it was George W. Bush who propelled an illegal invasion of Iraq by way of relentless pounding of repetitive messaging of discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq coupled with incessant images of the Twin Towers being destroyed. This psyop (or psychological operation, a new form or warfare) reverberated throughout a mainstream media that obediently fed the lies to the masses. The role of the media was absolutely essential. Yet, in spite of Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq, citizens of the globe, in united cohesion, held the largest mass protests and peace vigils the world had ever witnessed.

Today, however, the push to invade under the guise of humanitarianism is no longer a message from predominantly imperialist governments alone. Rather, there is a new game in town. Flash forward one decade to 2011 and the push for war no longer comes from the lone vacuity of despised war criminals such as George Bush or his charismatic alter-ego, Barack Obama. Rather, the message is now being spoon-fed to global society via the “trusted” NGOs, with Avaaz, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch at the forefront, as documented prior to and during the attack on and subsequent occupation of Libya, and more recently, the destabilization of Syria. [One of many reports of such malfeasance include “HUMAN RIGHTS” WARRIORS FOR EMPIRE | Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch“, by Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report.]

“While much was made of the United Nations decision to establish a Human Rights Council in 2006, those who’ve witnessed the evolution of this institution are well aware that the UN was designed by (and functions to serve) the interests of modern states and their supplicants, not the Indigenous nations they rule. For those attached to charitable organizations like Human Rights Watch and other pashas of the piety industry, this is a bitter pill to swallow.” — Jay Taber, Obstacles to Peace, 13 July 2012

 

“The UN Human Rights Council stands as one of the significant obstacles to dynamic political development in the Fourth World. Many individuals and the peoples they represent in the Fourth World have come to believe that the UN Human Rights Council will relieve their pain from the violence of colonialism. It cannot, and it will not.” — Dr. Rudolph Ryser, Chair of the Center for World Indigenous Studies

A decade later, thanks to the non-profit industrial complex awash in an influx of money that flows like the river Nile, partnered with the corporate media complex, it is now “the people” – having been swayed by fabrications, omissions and lies – who lead the demand for invasion of these sovereign states. And, most ironic, it is not the so-called “right” at the vanguard; rather, it is the “progressive left.”

Historical Amnesia

“False reality” requires historical amnesia, lying by omission and the transfer of significance to the insignificant. In this way, political systems promising security and social justice have been replaced by piracy, “austerity” and “perpetual war”: an extremism dedicated to the overthrow of democracy. Applied to an individual, this would identify a psychopath. Why do we accept it? — John Pilger, award–winning journalist, in History is the Enemy as “Brilliant” Psy-ops Become the News, 21 June 2012

Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, David Hilliard, Fred Hampton, and Erica Huggins – forgotten heroes indeed. The Black Panthers, who emerged on the scene in 1966, drew much inspiration from the ideologies of Malcolm X. Rejecting pacifism and reformism, under the leadership of Fred Hampton, the Panthers recognized the necessity of militant action and self-defense (“by any means necessary”) against racists and the state. The Panthers were effective in organizing the struggle towards a true revolutionary faction, with the state full-well recognizing the very real potential the Panthers held to gain mass support for their revolutionary movement. The state was terrified at this very real threat. It must be noted that during this same time period, white youth were demonstrating against the Vietnam war while 45% of Blacks fighting in Vietnam proclaimed they would be prepared to take up arms within their own state to secure justice for the American people. Considering that in 1960 almost half of America’s population was under 18 years of age, the ample surplus of youth made the threat of a widespread revolt against the status quo a very real possibility. By 1967, the rise in militancy and “Black Power” drew a very tactical response from very anxious foundations. Rockefeller and Ford created the National Urban Coalition (NUC) with the intent of transforming “Black Power” into “Black capitalism.” This was the vehicle designed/created to crush the building momentum that was confronting/challenging the prevailing system of economic control and oppression. By 1970, as Black capitalism took hold, foundations were funneling over $15 million into “moderate” Black organizations in order to effectively deflect the Black Power movement into non-threatening channels. With Black Power successfully transitioning itself into Black capitalism, American corporations utilized the opportunity to cast themselves in a liberal, progressive light by financing Black Power conferences.

The evidence that the Panthers’ revolutionary movement was a very real threat to the American state is indisputable: the FBI (under J. Edgar Hoover) declared the Panthers the number one threat to the internal security of the US. The state tried to eradicate the Panthers “by any means necessary,” gunning down scores of Panthers in the street.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was also closely affiliated with the Rockefellers via the 1957 founded Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), which received money from the church and the Rockefellers. Although quite radical, elites considered SCLC moderate and “workable” because of its stance on nonviolence (which protects the state), alongside goals of integration rather than revolution. However, by the late 1960’s, Martin Luther King, Jr. had embraced militancy and radical positions espoused by both the Panthers and Malcolm X. As Martin Luther King, Jr.’s refusal to compromise increased, the foundation funding decreased. A respected man of such stature, speaking out, thus educating a vast public of the oppression caused by the capitalist system/racism, was indeed (and remains so today) a great threat to the powers that dominate. Thus, King was assassinated. Today, in united cohesion, the states work ardently with “progressive” (foundation-funded) media and the non-profit industrial complex, in ensuring that the King legacy is continually and relentlessly sanitized, watered down and co-opted to serve the elitist agenda. The pacifist doctrine, fondly funded by hegemonic rule, is continuously pumped through and circulated throughout the gentrified “movement” like fluoride in the city water – a neutral benevolence of slow poison we drink in voluntary servitude. [June 27, 2012: Black On The Old Plantation | Civil Rights Organizations Enslave Themselves to Corporate Funding]

“We do not fight racism with racism. We fight racism with solidarity. We do not fight exploitative capitalism with black capitalism. We fight capitalism with basic socialism. We fight imperialism with proletarian internationalism.” — Bobby Seale, a founder of the Black Panthers

While Huey P. Newton advocated armed struggle, his ideology did not mean that the end product would be a world in which violence reigns. Rather, Newton believed that the oppressed must use guns as the means to a peaceful end of the oppression. He quoted Mao Tse-tung: “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we don’t not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” Within the Panther Party, the gun was not upheld as a means of violence, rather, it was a symbol for empowerment and self-determination. [Huey P. Newton :: Philosophy :: Armed Self-Defense]

In October of 1969, hundreds of youth clad in football helmets marched through an elite shopping district of Chicago. Utilizing lead pipes, they shattered shop windows and demolished parked cars. This was the first demonstration known as the “Days of Rage” – organized by a group who called themselves the Weather Underground. Outraged by the war on Vietnam and the rampant racism in America, the Weather Underground waged a strategic low-level war against the state that continued throughout much of the seventies. The Underground had the state on the run. Members of the Underground bombed state property including the Capitol building (never incurring a single casualty) and even broke Timothy Leary out of prison all while successfully evading one of the largest FBI manhunts ever conducted in US history.

Weather Underground Bombs the Capitol, Pentagon, and State Department (Running time 10:00)

 

 

Today, most all the past revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground, now conformed, apologize for their “tactics,” having been isolated and framed as “violent” by the co-opted left and status quo. [http://youtu.be/S6kPGh0w_-c]

It was during this time of true revolutionary uprising that money and “opportunities” began to siphon into the movements. The art of co-optation had begun with the only weapon (palatable to the public) the oligarchy possessed – money. This money would serve to indulge, thus co-opt, inflated egos scouted from within the left. Co-opting was an absolute necessity for the state to protect the dominant power structures from true systemic change that would effectively transfer power to the people. Examples of revolutionary movements in history, as evidenced in The Weather Underground, the Panthers and others, demonstrate unequivocally that the left became more jingoistic for war only after an influx of money began pouring in from the state and plutocrats via their foundations, which were in many cases set up for this very purpose.

A case in point: Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality/CORE (who advocated “Black control of Black communities” in order to allow for the manifestation of “Black capitalism”) was named a Ford Foundation fellow and became a board member of the Rockefeller/Ford-created NUC/National Urban Coalition. Ford granted CORE Cleveland $175,000 in 1967 to help elect Carl Stokes, who was very much pro Black-capitalism.

Lesser known are the events led by CIA operant Gloria Steinem. The “Black Feminist” movement was created, funded and manipulated by the CIA from the very beginning with Steinem leading the charge. Steinem planted faux “Black feminists” in revolutionary Black Power movements/grassroots organizations in order to instill division and hatred and, ultimately, to dismantle the growing movement. Steinem’s “success” would assist the state’s crushing of the Black Power movement itself. [Read: BLACK FEMINISM, THE CIA AND GLORIA STEINEM]

Throughout the world, there are organizations identifying themselves as the Black Panthers and other true revolutionary movements in existence. However, blinded by the shiny veneer of the big NGOs, few people are aware that such revolutionary movements even exist today. It is the job of the non-profit industrial complex, while waving the pacifist bible in one hand, to deliberately ensure that these groups are not only marginalized, but ignored altogether. Such movements, which have to potential to disrupt (or even dismantle) the power structures that enslave us, must remain invisible or framed in a negative light – if co-opting them is not possible, that is.

And that is something that the Western culture has perfected: co-optation. Forrest Palmer writes: “I am writing a blog post called ‘Malcolm X on a postage stamp.’ It is exactly what you see here [http://www.movements.org/pages/team]. If you know that something is happening at the grassroots and you can’t stop it, the West accepts it, places their handpicked leaders in the forefront who appease the masses into thinking what they are doing is still ‘revolutionary,’  negotiate with the ‘leaders’ ensuring they acquiesce to the state, compromise and either end up with things status quo or so watered down that the compromise doesn’t help the masses at all, but instead helps the state. The best example of a singular event of this: The March on Washington. It went from a black mass rebellion to a benign walk in the park masquerading as a movement. They had all their speeches proofread by the state, including King’s ‘great’ I Have a Dream speech. If the speeches weren’t what the state wanted, they either changed them (John Lewis) or weren’t allowed to speak (James Baldwin).”

“Malcolm predicted that if the civil rights bill wasn’t passed, there would be a march on Washington in 1964. Unlike the 1963 March on Washington, which was peaceful and integrated, the 1964 march Malcolm described would be an all-Black ‘non-violent army’ with one-way tickets.” [Wikipedia, speaking of Malcolm X and his speech The Ballot or the Bullet.]

And so it goes. Malcolm X was assassinated on 21 February 1965. And while our brothers and sisters in Africa, the Middle East and the Global South continue to be grossly exploited or altogether annihilated by the imperialist forces, the movement is ever-so acquiescent. Five hundred dollars a day for lodging at the Rio+20 Summit has never been so easy for those within the champagne circuit. And with a Democratic administration and a Black American president in the White House, the modern civil rights movement and dominant left organizations have never found it so easy to remain silent, with little to no criticism from civil society who, self-appointed, they falsely claim to represent.

“While in the US those puppets have traditionally taken on the form of talking heads on corporate and public television, they are increasingly represented in the form of NGO PR puppets employed in the moral theatrics industry…. As the credibility of politicians and pundits plummets, it is these PR puppets that are increasingly responsible for bolstering public support for militarism in general and militarized humanitarian intervention in particular.” — Jay Taber, Intercontinental Cry; Pious Poseurs, 24 June 2012

Although now seemingly normalized, one must consider it slightly ironic that it is in fact no longer the dominant “progressive left” beating the drums against war. [Exceptions include legitimate grassroots groups such as Peacelink in Italy.] Rather, as in the case of climate change, it is primarily the countries seeking to free themselves from the chains of imperialist enslavement that vocally oppose the escalating destabilization campaigns, inclusive of the most recent, in Syria. On 16 February 2012, the 12 sovereign states who voted against the resolution to condemn Syria at the United Nations included North Korea, China, Russia, Iran and Syria, along with states who primarily compose ALBA; Bolivia, Belarus, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua. And it is not coincidence that most all the leaders of all these same states, who continue the struggle for autonomy, are all similarly vilified and demonized by the corporate-media complex, joined recently by the non-profit industrial complex. It is critical to note that the imperialist powers (inclusive of the UN) do not criticize or demonize or withdraw their support from such leaders on any ethical or moral ground. Denunciation of state leaders and emotive language is merely theatre. Rather, the imperialist states strategically set out to destroy any state leader that is unwilling to be controlled by US interests and foreign policy. A case in point is unwavering support of the Saudi royal family responsible for atrocious human rights violations to which the imperialist countries turn a blind eye.

Demonization is a key psyop, directly sponsored by the US Pentagon and intelligence apparatus to influence and sway public opinion and build consensus in favour of invasion. [Prof. Michel Chossudovsky] A recent example can be extracted from the failed 2011 destabilization campaign against the Morales government in Bolivia led by US-funded NGOs including the “Democracy Centre,” which declared: “But the abuses dealt out by the government against the people of the TIPNIS have knocked ‘Evo the icon’ off his pedestal in a way from which he will never fully recover, in Bolivia and globally.” [Further reading: U.S. Funded Democracy Centre Reveals Its Real Reason for Supporting the TIPNIS Protest in Bolivia: REDD $$$. ¿Por qué se defiende el tipnis?, http://youtu.be/RPiw3cDotHA]

A similar situation (developing nations, rather than the “environmental movement,” taking the lead) has taken place on the issue of climate change. ALBA nations, with Bolivia at the forefront, led while the non-profit industrial complex purposely and grossly undermined the strong positions necessary to mitigate the climate emergency. The climate justice movement was acquiescent and thus kowtowed to the “big greens”; “big greens” such as Avaaz, 350.org and Greenpeace who had partnered with HSBC, Lloyds Bank, nuclear giant EDF, Virgin Group, Shell (via TckTckTck partner, the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change) and other corporate giants constituting the “TckTckTck campaign” whereby “the objective was to make it become a movement that consumers, advertisers and the media would use and exploit” (Havas Press Release). There was no justice to be found, only a cohesive hypocrisy amongst the professional left that flourished like a cancer.

 

Next: Part II

 

[Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation, Counterpunch, Political Context, Canadians for Action on Climate Change and Countercurrents. Her writing has also been published by Bolivia Rising and Cambio, the official newspaper of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. You can follow her on Twitter @elleprovocateur]

 

“Manufactured Dissent”: The Financial Bearings of the “Progressive Left Media”

 

Since the early 2000s US-based “left-progressive” media that purport to be independent have received tens of millions in grants and contributions while they have ignored some of the most important news stories of our time. History suggests a relationship between elite philanthropic sponsorship of such outlets and self-censorship toward pressing events and issues while concurrently maintaining a public semblance of issue-oriented rebellion and dissent.

Why do the self-proclaimed left-progressive “independent” media repeatedly overlook, obfuscate or otherwise leave unexamined some of the most momentous geopolitical and environmental events of our time—September 11th and related false flag terror events, the United Nations’ “Agenda 21,” the genuinely grave environmental threats posed by the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, geoengineering (weather modification), and the dire health effects of genetically modified organisms?[1] In fact, these phenomena together point to a verifiable transnational political economic framework against which a mass social movement could readily emerge.

Yet over the past decade the actual function of such journalistic outlets has increasingly been to “manufacture dissent”–in other words, to act as the controlled opposition to the financial oligarchs and an encroaching scientific dictatorship that to an already significant degree controls the planet and oversees human thought and activity. Indeed, many alternative media outlets that appear to be independent of the power structure are funded by the very forces they are reporting on through their heavy reliance on the largesse of major philanthropic foundations.

With the across-the-board deregulation of the transnational financial system in the late 1990s and consequent enrichment of Wall Street and London-based investment banks and hedge funds, the resources of such foundations and charities have increased tremendously. Consequently, the overall funding of “activist” organizations and “alternative” media has climbed sharply, making possible the broadly disseminated appearance of strident voices speaking truth to power. In fact, the protesters and journalists alike are often tethered to the purse strings of the powerful. As a result,

“Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generally funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement.”[2]

The efforts of financial elites to influence left-progressive political opinion goes back a century or more. In the early 1900s, for example, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations decisively shaped the trajectory of elementary and higher education. Yet a less-examined development is how such influence extended to the mass media. A specific instance of such interests seeking to influence the Left community specifically is the establishment of The New Republic magazine at a decisive time in US history.

Purchased Political Opinion: The Founding of The New Republic

Throughout the twentieth century powerful financial interests have sought to anticipate and direct American left wing social movements and political activity by penetrating their opinion-shaping apparatus. This was seldom difficult because progressives were usually strapped for funds while at the same time eager for a mouthpiece to reach the masses. In 1914 Wall Street’s most powerful banking house, J.P. Morgan, was willing to provide both. “The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold,” historian Carroll Quigley explains.

“(1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups;

(2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could “blow off steam,” and

(3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical.” There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.”[3]

As an example, in 1914 Morgan partner and East Asia agent Willard Straight established The New Republic with money from himself and his wife, Dorothy Payne Whitney of the Payne Whitney fortune. “’Use your wealth to put ideas into circulation,’ Straight had told his wife. ‘Others will give to churches and hospitals.’”[4]

The idea of funding such an organ partly developed between the wealthy couple after they read Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life, in which the well-known liberal author assailed the foundations of traditional Progressivism, with its Jeffersonian doctrine of free enterprise and inclination for decentralized, unrestrictive government. In such a laissez-faire arrangement, Croly reasoned, the strong would always take advantage of the weak. “Only a strong central government could control and equitably distribute the benefits of industrial capitalism. … guided by a strong and farsighted leader.” Toward this end Croly proposed a “constructive” or “New Nationalism”, and a medium to reach a captive audience could promote such ideals on a regular basis.[5]

As Croly recalls, Straight

“hunted me up and asked me to make a report for him on the kind of social education which would be most fruitful in a democracy. Thereafter I saw him frequently, and in one of our conversations we discussed a plan for a new weekly which would apply to American life, as it developed, the political and social ideas which I had sketched in the book … We hoped to make it the mouthpiece of those Americans to whom disinterested thinking and its result in convictions were important agents of the adjustment between human beings and the society in which they live.”[6]

Straight designated Croly editor-in-chief of The New Republic‘s and the young socialist writer Walter Lippmann, who by his mid-twenties was an adviser to presidents and a member of the shadowy Round Table Groups, was approached to be a founding editorial board member and subsequently entrusted with gearing the American readership toward a more favorable view of Britain.

Croly later noted how Straight was hardly liberal or progressive in his views. Rather, he was a regular international banker and saw the magazine’s purpose “simply [as] a medium for advancing certain designs of such international bankers, notably to blunt the isolationism and anti-British sentiments so prevalent among many American progressives, while providing them with a vehicle for expression of their progressive views in literature, art, music, social reform, and even domestic polices.”[7]

Following establishment of The New Republic, Straight considered purchasing The New York Evening Post or The Washington Herald. “He longed for a daily newspaper,” Croly recalls, “which would communicate public information in the guise of news as well as in the guise of opinion and which would be read by hundreds of thousands of people instead of only tens of thousands, to serve as his personal medium of expression.”[8]

Straight and Payne Whitney’s son, “Mike” Straight, carried on The New Republic through the 1940s in close alignment with Left and labor organizations, even providing Henry Wallace with a position on the editorial staff in 1946 and backing Wallace’s 1948 presidential bid.

With Willard Straight’s early death in 1918 another Morgan partner, Tom Lamont, apparently became the bank’s representative to the Left, supporting The Saturday Review of Literature in the 1920s and 1930s, and owning the New York Post from 1918 to 1924. Lamont, his wife Flora, and son Corliss were major patrons to a variety of Left concerns, including the American Communist Party and Trade Union Services Incorporated, which in the late 1940s published fifteen union organs for CIO unions. Frederick Vanderbilt Field, another well-heeled Wall Street banker, sat on the editorial boards of The New Masses and the Daily Worker—New York’s official Communist newspapers.[9]

Progressive-Left Media’s Financing Today

Since the 1990s the framework for guiding the Left has developed into a vast combine of powerful, well-funded philanthropic foundations that function on the behalf of their wealthy owners as a well-oiled mechanism of opinion management. Such philanthropic entities oversee formidable wealth that today’s heirs to the Straight and Payne Whitney tradition seek to shield from taxation while. At the same time they are able to employ such resources to influence political thought, discourse, and action. Further, following the broad-based 1999 protests of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, global elite interests recognized the importance of developing the means to “manufacture dissent.”

Such foundations no doubt exert at least subtle influence over the editorial decisions of the vulnerable progressive media beholden to them for financing. This is partially due to the personnel of the foundations themselves. The task of doling out money frequently falls to foundation officials who are retired political advocates with certain notions about what organizations should be funded and, moreover, how the money should be spent. As Michael Shuman, former director of the Institute for Policy Studies observed in the late 1990s,

“A number of program officers at progressive foundations are former activists who decided to move from the demand to the supply side to enjoy better salaries, benefits and working hours. Yet they still want to live like activists vicariously… by exercising influence over grantees through innumerable meetings, reports, conferences and “suggestions” . . . Many progressive funders treat their grantees like disobedient children who need to be constantly watched and disciplined.”[10]

Doling out grant money to a journalistic outlet is especially controversial since genuine journalism is inherently political given its inclination toward pursuing and examining the decisions and policies of power elites. As Ron Curran of the Independent Media Institute notes, money from foundations “has engendered a climate of secrecy at IAJ (Institute for Alternative Journalism n/k/a Independent Media Institute [IMI]) that’s in direct conflict with IAJ’s role as a progressive media organization.” He continues, “the only money nonprofits can get these days is from private foundations–and those foundations want to control the political agenda.”[11]

If funding is any indication of sheer influence over progressive media, that influence has grown by leaps and bounds at the foremost left media outlets since the 1990s. For example, between 1990 and 1995 the four major progressive print news outlets, The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, and Mother Jones received a combined $537,500 in grants and contributions. In 2010, however, The Nation Institute (The Nation) alone received $2,267,184 in funding, The Progressive took in $1,310,889, the Institute for Public Affairs (In These Times) accepted $961,015, and the Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones) collected $4,725,235.[12] These figures are for grants and contributions alone and do not include revenue generated from subscription sales and other promotions. Alongside the overall compromised nature such funding can bring, the tremendous increase over the past decade suggests one reason for why specific subject matter that is off-limits for coverage or discussion.

With the development of the internet several new alternative-progressive outlets have emerged between the late 1990s and early 2000s, including Alternet, Democracy Now, and satellite channel Link TV. Recognizing their influence a vast array of “public support” has likewise made these multi-million dollar operations alongside their print-based forebears.

For example, between 2003 and 2010 Democracy Now has taken in $25,577,243—an annual average of $3,197,155, with 2010 assets after liabilities of $11,760,006. Between 2006 and 2010 the Pacific News Service received $26,867,417, or $5,373,483 annually.  The Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones) brought in $46,623,197, or $4,662,320, and Link TV raised $54,839,710 between 2001 and 2009 for average annual funding of $6,093,301.(Figure 1)

Media Organization

501(c) 3
Total Support 2001-2010
Average Annual Support 2001-2010

Net Assets After Liabilities (2010)

Democracy Now
Productions Inc.
Yes
$25.577,243 (from 2003)
$3,197,155
$11,760,006

Schumann Center for Media and Democracy

Yes
NA
$3,471,682 (2010)
$33,314,688

Nation Institute (The Nation)
Yes
$22,246,533
$2,224,653
$4,798,831

Pacific News Service
Yes
$26,867,417 (2006-2010)
$5,373,483
$712,011

Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones)
Yes
$46,623,19

$4,662,320
-$1,189,040

The Progressive
Yes
$8,702,146
$870,215
$5,493,782

Link TV
Yes
$54,839,710 (excludes 2010)
$6,093,301
$1,533,308

Institute for Public Affairs (In These Times)
Yes
$4,469,119 (excludes 2006, 2007)
$558,640
-$114,532

Institute for Independent Media (Alternet)
Yes
$14,441,678
$1,444,168
$900,585

Figure 1. Grants, Gifts, Contributions, and Membership Fees of Select “Independent Progressive” Media or Media-Related Organizations 2001-2010 (unless otherwise noted). Based on 2001-2010 IRS Form 990s.

Bill Moyers’ Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, which funds The Nation Institute and online news organ Truthout, has net assets of $33,314,688 and brought in $3,471,682 in 2010 income.[13] Because these organizations assert under their 501c3 status that they have no overt political agenda, all income is untaxed.[14] Nor are they required to list the sources of their funding—even especially generous contributions. As the early 1990s grant figures for The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, and Mother Jones suggest, nickel-and-dime contributions constitute a small percentage of such outlets’ overall “public” support.

Funding and Self-Censorship / Conclusion

Given the extent of foundation funding for left-progressive media, it is not surprising how such venues police themselves and proceed with the wishes of their wealthy benefactors in mind. As Croly observed concerning The New Republic, the Straights and Payne Whitneys “could always withdraw their financial support, if they ceased to approve of the policy of the paper; and in that event it would go out of existence as a consequence of their disapproval.”[15] Indeed, this is the left news media’s greatest fear.

In light of these dynamics and the big money at stake the progressive media’s censorial practices are understandable. At the same time self-censorship involves a fairly implicit set of social and behavioral processes. As Warren Breed discovered several decades ago, journalists’ socialization and workplace routinization constitute a process whereby newsworkers themselves internalize the mindset and wishes of their publishers, thereby making overt censorship unnecessary.[16] We may conclude that a similar process is in play when today’s “progressive” journalists and their editors share or accept many of the same interests, sentiments and expectations of those who hold the purse strings–and who would likely disapprove of attending to certain “controversial” or “conspiratorial” topics and issues.

With this in mind the foremost concern with such media is the uniform declaration of their “alternative” and “independent” missions–claims that are as problematic and misleading as Fox News’ “fair and balanced” mantle. A more appropriate (and honest) moniker for the foundation-funded press is a caveat emptor-style proclamation: “The following content is intended to impart the illusion of empowerment and dissent, yet can leave you uninformed of the most pressing issues of our time, in accordance with the wishes of our sponsors.”

 

Notes

[1] On false flag terror see Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, New York: Routledge, 2005. On Fukushima see Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Ongoing Crisis of World Nuclear Radiation, ed. Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa: Centre for Research on Globalization, January 25, 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28870. For ongoing reportage see Enviroreporter.com. On Agenda 21 see Rachel Koire, Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21, The Post-Sustainability Press, 2011. On geoengineering and weather modification see Project Censored 2012 Story #9, “Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification,” Censored 2012: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2010-2011, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011, 84-90, http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-government-sponsored-technologies-for-weather-modification/. On genetically modified organisms see Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods, White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2007, and F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, Ottawa: Centre for Research on Globalization, 2007.

[2] Michel Chossudovsky, “Manufacturing Dissent: The Antiglobalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 20, 2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110

[3] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, New York: MacMillan, 1966, 938.

[4] Ronald Steele, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1980, 60. Payne Whitney would continue to fund the publication until 1953.

[5] Steele, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, 59.

[6] Herbert Croly, Willard Straight, New York: Macmillan & Company, 1924, 472.

[7] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 940.

[8] Croly, Willard Straight, 474.

[9] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 945-946.

[10] Michael Shuman, “Why do Progressive Foundations Give too Little to too Many?” The Nation, January 12, 1998, 11-16, The Nation ( January 12): 11–16. Available at http://www.tni.org/archives/act/2112

[11] Ron Curran 1997. “Buying the News.” San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 8, 1997. Cited in Bob Feldman, “Reports from the Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks—Foundation Managed Protest,” Critical Sociology 33 (2007), 427-446. Available at www.irasilver.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2011/ 08/Reading-Foundations-Feldman.pdf

[12] Feldman, “Reports from the Field.”

[13] All tax-related information obtained through GuideStar, http://www2.guidestar.org/Home.aspx, and Foundation Center, http://foundationcenter.org/

[14] Progressive-left finger pointers such as Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America are similarly awash in foundation funding and require separate treatment.

[15] Croly, Willard Straight, 474.

[16] Warren Breed, “Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis,” Social Forces, 33:4 (May 1955), 326-335. Available at https://umdrive.memphis.edu

James F. Tracy is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University and blogs at www.memorygap.org

SPECIAL REPORT: EXPOSING U.S. AGENTS OF LOW-INTENSITY WARFARE IN AFRICA

The “Policy Wonks” Behind Covert Warfare & Humanitarian Fascism

August 8, 2012
by Keith Harmon Snow

Conscious Being Alliance

This special report includes three unpublished video clips of interviewees from the Politics of Genocide documentary film project: Ugandan dignitary Remigius Kintu, former Rwandan prime minister Fautisn Twagiramungu, and Nobel peace prize nominee Juan Carrero Saralegui.

               From the 1980s to today, an elite group of Western intelligence operatives have backed low-intensity guerrilla warfare in certain African ‘hotspots’.  Mass atrocities in the Great Lakes and Sudan can be linked to Roger Winter, a pivotal U.S. operative whose ‘team’ was recently applauded for birthing the world’s newest nation, South Sudan.  Behind the fairytale we find a long trail of blood and skeletons from Uganda to Sudan, Rwanda and Congo.  While the mass media has covered their tracks, their misplaced moralism has simultaneously helped birth a new left-liberal ‘humanitarian’ fascism.  In this falsification of consciousness, Western human rights crusaders and organizations, funded by governments, multinational corporations and private donors, cheer the killers and blame the victims—and pat themselves on the back for saving Africa from itself.  Meanwhile, the “Arab Spring” has spread to (north) Sudan.  Following the NATO-Israeli model of regime change being used in Central & North Africa, it won’t be long before the fall of Khartoum. 

SPLA Tank in South Sudan: An old SPLA army tank sits in the bush in Pochalla, Jonglei State, south Sudan in 2004.  Israel, the United States, Britain and Norway have been the main suppliers of the covert low-intensity war in Sudan, organized by gunrunners and policy ‘wonks’.  Photo c. keith harmon snow, 2004.

It is, oh! such a happy fairy tale!  It begins as all happy fairy tales do, in fantasy land.  The fantasy is one of human rights princes and policy ‘wonks’ in shining armor and the new kingdom of peace and tranquility, democracy and human rights, that they have created.  That is what the United States foreign policy establishment and the corporate mass media—and not a few so-called ‘human rights activists’—would have us believe about the genesis of the world’s newest nation, South Sudan.

“In the mid-1980s, a small band of policy wonks began convening for lunch in the back corner of a dimly lit Italian bistro in the U.S. capital,” wrote Rebecca Hamilton in the recent fairytale: “The Wonks Who Sold Washington on South Sudan.”  Hamilton is a budding think-tank activist-advocate-agent whose whitewash of the low intensity war for Sudan (and some Western architects of it), distilled from her book Fighting for Darfur, was splashed all over the Western press on 11 July 2012. [1]

The photos accompanying Hamilton’s story show a happy fraternity of ‘wonks’—what exactly is a ‘wonk’?—obviously being your usual down-jacket, beer- and coffee-slurping American citizens from white America, with a token black man thrown in to change the complexion of this Africa story.  Their cups are white and clean, their cars are shiny and new, their convivial smiles are almost convincing.  There is even a flag of the new country just sort of floating across Eric Reeves’ hip.

Because of Dr. Reeves’  ‘anti-genocide’ work in Sudan, Boston College professor Alan Wolfe has written that the Smith College English professor is “arrogant to the point of contempt.”  (I have had a similar though much more personal experience of Dr. Reeves’ petulance.)

“John Prendergast (L-R), Eric Reeves, Brian D’Silva, Ted Dagne and Roger Miller [sic]—pose for a photograph in this undated image provided to Reuters by John Prendergast,” reads the original Reuters syndicated news caption for the posed image of the Council of Wonks.  (U.S. intelligence & defense operative Roger Winter is misidentified as “Roger Miller”.)

The story and its photos project the image of casual, ordinary people who, we are led to believe, did heroic and superhuman things.  What a bunch of happy-go-lucky wonks!  Excuse me: policy wonks!  And their bellies are presumably warmed by that fresh Starbucks ‘fair trade’ genocide coffee shipped straight from the killing fields of post-genocide [sic] Rwanda… where, coincidentally, Starbucks reportedly cut a profit of more than a few million dollars in 2011.

This is a tale of dark knights, of covert operators and spies aligned with the cult of intelligence in the United States.  Operating in secrecy and denial within the U.S. intelligence and defense establishment, they have helped engineer more than two decades of low intensity warfare in Sudan (alone), replete with massive suffering and a death toll of between 1.5 and 3 million Sudanese casualties—using their own fluctuating statistics on mortality—and millions upon millions of casualties in the Great Lakes of Africa.

Behind the fantasy is a very real tale of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocides real and alleged, and mass atrocities covered up by these National Security agents with the aid of a not-so-ordinary English professor—their one-man Ministry of Disinformation—Dr. Eric Reeves. →