Charles Shaw: Regulated Resistance
- Charles Shaw: Regulated Resistance
Regulated Resistance: The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left
Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - Last February United for Peace and Justice,
the largest representative coalition within the American "anti-war
movement", emerged from their second annual Assembly with a 2005
"action plan" that effectively caged the "anti-war" debate exclusively
within the Iraq conflict to achieve partisan ends on behalf of the
pro-war Democratic Party and their Neoliberal corporate benefactors.
Their "action plan" refused to address any of the core issues of US
Foreign and Defense policy, which are the root causes of a pervading
culture of war and militarism that has taken over the nation in the
years since WWII.
These decisions are part of a larger pattern of "regulated
resistance", a system by which dissent is carefully managed and
constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship;
denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional criticism
and reprisal; and pressure from powers above including elected
officials and those establishment foundations which flood millions
into the not-for-profit activist sector.
This establishment money, and the access it grants, has caused many
ostensible resistance leaders to suddenly and dramatically abandon
long-held ideological positions and shift their behavior towards doing
what can clearly be seen as the bidding of those in power whose views
and values are in direct contravention to the established mores of
peace and justice movements throughout history.
These "resistance leaders" of the "Left" act as
"Gatekeepers"â"influential "progressive" figures who use their
resources and visibility to regulate the debate, tactics, and rhetoric
of the "anti-war" and other "progressive" movements.
The Gatekeepers of the So-Called "Left"
"The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other
reason than to tell us lies where their interests are concerned." â"
In his shocking investigative report <
http://questionsquestions.net/topics/left_gatekeepers.html > "The Left
Gatekeepers", journalist Bob Feldman researched purportedly "Left"
activist and media organizations that receive substantial funding from
large establishment foundations with known ties to the CIA, the
Council on Foreign Relations
< http://www.cfr.org/ > , the Trilateral Commission <
http://www.trilateral.org/ >, and even the much-maligned Carlyle
Group, the arms dealing "investment fund" featured in Michael Moore's
Fahrenheit 9/11, of which GHW Bush, the Saudi royal family, and, at
one time, the Bin Laden family, are all equity partners.
The Foundation structure is used by these organizations to funnel
corporate and personal wealth into the policy-making process.
Foundations are tax-free, and contributions to foundations are
deductible from federal corporate and individual income taxes. The
Foundations themselves are not subject to federal income taxation, and
they control hundreds of billions of dollars of money that would
normally go to pay these necessary taxes.
Feldman asks, "Are the interests of the people being served by
'dissidents' who are being subsidized by the agencies of the ruling
class whom they should be exposing? What does this say about the
motivations behind the Left establishment's ideological warfare
against conspiracy researchers, and their adoption of an increasingly
watered-down analytical view which fails to look closely at the inner
power structures and conspiracies of the ruling elite?"
Many of these "dissidents" Feldman describes are members of the UFPJ
Steering Committee, and he specifically cites prominent peace activist
Medea Benjamin, and Leslie Cagan, the renowned anti-nuke activist who
is now UFPJ's National Director.
Disproportionate Influence and a Profound Conflict of Interest
Medea Benjamin and Kevin Danaher co-founded the international human
rights organization Global Exchange < http://www.globalexchange.org/
>17 years ago. In that time they have been consistently clear andoutspoken with their views on war and Neoliberalismâ"more commonly
known as corporate globalization. Because of their combined
intellectual acuity and renowned fearlessness, Benjamin's media savvy,
and the access they have been granted through some of their more
prominent benefactors such as the MacArthur Foundation and billionaire
financier George Soros, they have come to command a high level of
visibility in progressive politics.
Benjamin has fast made a name for herself as a leading figure in the
"anti-war movement" with well-publicized media stunts at the
Republican and Democratic Conventions, disruptions of FCC and
Congressional hearings, and frequent trips to the Middle East to
showcase the suffering of the Iraqi and Afghani people. She also
benefits from her proximity to well-known "progressive" leaders,
celebrities, and journalists.
Alongside her Code Pink Women for Peace <
http://www.codepink4peace.org/index.php, and Danaher's Green Festivals
< http://www.greenfestivals.com/ >, Global Exchange has come to
command a significant market share in the larger peace and justice
community, reaping enormous "street cred" within the activist world.
Benjamin also wields a disproportionate amount of weight within the
Green Party of the United States, having run for Senator of California
on their ticket in 2000, and within the anti-war umbrella group United
for Peace and Justice < http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ >, where she
sits on their Steering Committee and is arguably their most
influential member. As testament, Benjamin and her Global
Exchange/Code Pink cadre were the authors of three of the five
proposals passed by UFPJ at the February Assembly.
But during the 2004 Presidential campaign, Benjamin's message and tone
began to shift dramatically into what came to be known as the "ABB"
movementâ"Anybody But Bush. She and eighty fellow prominent leaders
who once formed the one hundred-thirteen member "Nader 2000 Citizens
Committee"< http://www.vote2stopbush.com/ > put forth a petition
urging anti-war Nader not to run, and instead threw their support
behind pro-war Democratic Party candidate John Kerry. At the Green
Party National Convention in Milwaukee last June Benjamin campaigned
heavily for "safe-state" candidate David Cobb, who was also
unabashedly ABB and even initially pledged not to run in swing states,
though he now denies it. Benjamin cajoled Greens into neither
nominating Nader nor giving him the official endorsement he and
running mate Peter Camejo had publicly sought from the party.
The pro and con arguments of ABB have been argued exhaustively, and
many do not find the issue relevant any longer. But they are relevant
when considering just how UFPJ became ABB and has since found itself
embroiled in partisan politics working to attack exclusively the Bush
Administration and their competing Neoconservative movement, despite
the fact that American war policy is a bipartisan program.
Leslie Cagan's Pacifica Foundation is funded by the Rockefeller
Foundation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which was
recently taken over by what has been described as a "Right Wing coup":
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0412-11.htm ), the
Rockefeller-funded Working Assets group, and the ubiquitous George Soros.
Like PBS , the Pacifica Network recently went through a takeover drama
2274469 > where a cabal of Board members attempted to sell the station
off to center-mainstream corporate interests. Cagan is also reportedly
connected to the right-wing Ford Foundation, which funnels money to
her through a Lesbian advocacy group known as Astraea.
Peace Action < http://www.peace-action.org/ >, which describes itself
as "the nation's largest grassroots peace group" that "gets results,"
is funded in part by a Working Assets grant.
Both Peace Action and Working Assets gave UFPJ a combined total of
$45,000 for their 2003 operating budget (the last year UFPJ published
their financial statements, <
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1762 >something they are
required by law to do annually). UFPJ also received a $151,000 grant
from the Funding Exchange, a network of social justice foundations
throughout the United States that gives money to progressive
What outrages many of those within the activist community who are
aware of these funding sources is that these so-called "dissidents"
would consent to take money from these foundations given the long and
voluminous history they have as part of the war-making establishment <
In his book Trading with the Enemy, Charles Hingham documents how both
the Rockefeller and Ford fortunes were enhanced in part through
collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers by selling the Nazis
oil through the Standard Oil Company, and the Fords by selling the
Nazis tanks through subsidiary corporations (note: the only industrial
infrastructure spared in the Allied bombing of Germany was the Ford
Motors plant near Cologne). Both Standard Oil (eventually Amoco) and
the Ford Motor Co. made huge profits from Defense contracts following
WWII. Since 1950 a Rockefeller has held a prominent leadership
position in the Council on Foreign Relations, and David Rockefeller
was cofounder of the Trilateral Commission. Both organizations helped
craft the "Carter Doctrine" of the late 1970s which stated that the US
would heretofore intervene militarily to protect its oil supply from
the Middle East.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been the historical driving
force behind such bedrock institutions of corporate globalization as
the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Word
Trade Organization, and NATO, and which Esquire magazine referred to
in 1962 as "that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as
a nation." In 1950, the Chicago Tribune published a story on the CFR
in which they stated, "[the members] have used the prestige that their
wealth, their social position, and their education have given them to
lead their country towards bankruptcy and military debacle. They
should look at their hands. There is blood on themâ"the dried blood
of the last war and the fresh blood of the present one."
Billionaire George Soros, who refers to himself as a "progressive
philanthropist", has since 1995 been part of the arms-dealing Carlyle
Group < http://www.rense.com/general45/georgesorosistheissue.htm >, in
which he has invested a reported $100 Million, and has substantial
stock holdings in weapons manufacturers Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
He is a member and former Director of the CFR, and is a member of the
enigmatic Bilderberg Group < http://www.bilderberg.org/ >, a
collection of approximately 1300 of the world's richest and most
powerful figures in business, banking, media, military, and
government, who meet once a year in extreme secrecy and under almost
unfathomable security, and whose official purpose and actions remain a
mystery, spurring a deluge of wide-ranging speculation.
The 353-member American contingent of Bilderberg is a bipartisan
cavalcade that includes Paul Wolfowitz, David Rockefeller, Colin
Powell, Henry Kissinger, Vernon Jordan, Melinda Gates, Bill Clinton,
and Alan Greenspan. It is long argued and well documented that the
mission of this organization, working in conjunction with the Council
on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, is to manipulate
world governments and economies to promote a global, capitalist agenda
commonly referred to as the "New World Order". These supranational
bodies seek to dismantle national sovereignty (through mechanisms such
as "Free Trade" agreements) in favor of a one-world government which
primarily upholds the rights of corporations and the wealthy over the
This connection begs the question: How much influence does Soros and
his ilk have over Benjamin et al, and, by proxy, the "anti-war
movement"? Is this relationship the reason Benjamin has dropped the
anti-Globalization rhetoric and instead become immersed in partisan
wrangling over the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq? Is this
the reason she has adopted a "blowback" stance with regards to 9/11
and the resultant "War on Terror"? At the UFPJ Assembly, Benjamin
abstained from voting on the 9/11 Truth proposal, and afterwards
explained her abstention by claiming she was "afraid a vote for the
proposal would mean that UFPJ would have to work with certain
'difficult people' involved in the 9/11 Truth movement."
It is unfortunate Benjamin cannot bring herself to work with
"difficult" people (even though it is doubtful she is even aware of
just who is and is not a recognized credible member of 9/11 Truth).
Because of the nature of 9/11 research, it sadly finds itself
constantly infiltrated by the proverbial kook and various degrees of
disinformation, but Benjamin and UFPJ have taken an all-inclusive,
monolithic view of this very complex and diverse movement. It is even
more unfortunate, and some might argue tragic, that personal foibles
take priority over justice for the families of 3,000 people killed on
that fateful day in September, and the hundreds of thousands killed in
the name of the "War on Terror" as some form of retribution for 9/11.
Unless, of course, it was not a personal foible that influenced her
decision to abstain, but something more direct, such as a mandate from
her funders, the threat of some form of professional backlash or
reprisal, or simple peer disapproval.
And perhaps the greatest insult to injury is that she is now raising
money for the (somewhat oxymoronic) Progressive Democrats of America.
As Ralph Nader's running mate Peter Camejo wrote in an open letter to
the Green Party <
html >, "In the fund appeal for the PDA [Benjamin] says the PDA is not
the Democratic Party. It is like saying the Panama Canal is not Panama."
The Failed Obligations and Inexcusable Denials of the "Left" Media
To offer a clear portrait of how "regulated resistance" works within
the "Left" or "progressive" media, consider their steadfast refusal to
report on or organize around two of the most important incidents in
modern American history as pertains to our present
situationâ"possible US government involvement in 9/11, and the
relationship between the Bush family and the Nazi regime in Germany.
Sins of Omission and Distortion: 9/11, and the Rubber Stamp
As mentioned throughout this article, the first and perhaps greatest
failure of the "anti-war movement" is the shameful irresponsibility
the "Left" has shown by their refusal to challenge the "official"
story behind 9/11. < http://questionsquestions.net/topics/left_911.html >
Bob Feldman writes:
Not surprisingly, the rank and file didn't buy into the hypeâ"nor
were many convinced by the gatekeepers' offhand, passionless calls for
an official investigation. Interest in alternative 9/11 reporting
continued to grow, and by the time that members of 9/11 victim's
families began publicly demanding an end to the government cover-up
and even mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times were
admitting that the lack of an independent investigatory commission was
"extraordinary," the Left media gatekeepers backed down and adopted a
new tactic of silent stonewalling and tacit support for the official
Despite widespread and well-documented critiques that even "War on
Terror" apologists acknowledge, the corporate media has never once
challenged the "official" story < http://www.oilempire.us/media.html>.
Instead, they gleefully lapped up the Osama theory fed to it by the
Bush Administration while the fires at Ground Zero were still burning,
and in the 18 months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq settled
comfortably into its role as "Bush handmaiden and peace movement
News&file=article&sid=24&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 ... >
But the absence of any challenge to this story from the "anti-war
movement" is frankly disturbing on a level that supersedes even the
craven behavior of the corporate media. Although the "Left" has no
compunction attacking Bush and his Neoconservative cabal, it
consistently fails to see how the ongoing bipartisan validation of the
"official" story is the license the US Government takes to continue
their imperial ambitions through the chimera known as the "War on
Terror", and by proxy, the corporate neocolonialism occurring across
The 9/11 Truth movement got a fledgling chance to make its case to the
"Left" on May 26th, 2004, when, Amy Goodman, host of the flagship
Progressive news source Democracy NOW!, agreed to host prominent
theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor:
Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Her
decision followed a long and relentless "Waking Amy" <
http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/dn.php > campaign organized by
Emanuel Sferios of the 9/11 Visibility Project.
However, at the last minute, Goodman abruptly and without explanation
changed the format of the show from an interview to a "debate," and
brought in long-time "anti-conspiracist" Chip Berlet. Berlet is not an
expert on 9/11 research, and his group, Political Research Associates,
is an alleged "Left" organization that is funded in part by the Ford
Foundation. (It is interesting to note that "Chip" Berlet's full name
is John Foster Berlet. He was named after John Foster Dulles who, with
his brother Allen, designed the CIA for Harry Truman in 1947, and
played a prominent role in smuggling Nazis into America to help build
the post-WWII American "Defense" and Intelligence apparatus).
Despite their being a virtual laundry list of inconsistencies to the
"official" story, and documented proof of government cover-up
activity, the final product, "The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New
Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11
focused almost exclusively on a handful of weak speculations made by
French researcher Thierry Meyssan, not Griffin, about aspects of the
Pentagon strike. This well-worn tactic known as the "straw man
argument" is used by detractors to attack and undermine the weakest
part of an alternative theory in order to dismiss it and alienate the
public from the larger issue. If a journalist with otherwise flawless
research happens to have one bad assertion, the 90 per cent he or she
got right is generally ignored in favor of attaching the person to
their one misstep. This tactic presupposes in a "deductive" argument
that the theory is only as strong as the weakest link. Berlet tried to
discredit Griffin by associating him with Meyssan, even though Griffin
stated clearly on the show that his book merely compiled information
from other researchers in order to raise questions that made a solid
case that the "official" was simply implausible.
By only choosing to focus on the most difficult theories to
believeâ"regardless of their potential meritâ"Goodman and Berlet
completely missed the point. Griffin stated quite clearly on the
program: "There are all sorts of possible theories as to what
happened. You don't have to come up with an alternative theory to show
that the 'official' theory is very problematic."
Berlet countered by saying, "It's not good to believe in conspiracies
that cannot be proven by available evidence." But this principle does
not take into account the prevalent role of cover-ups in these types
of operations (such as this one being perpetrated by the US
Government), which prevents potentially enlightening evidence from
ever being examined. Some more notable examples include the total
failure of air defenses and the role of hijack-based "war games"
exercises taking place that morning, the admitted
controlled-demolition of Building 7 which had to have been pre-wired,
all the steel from the Twin Towers which was immediately shipped to
China without being studied, all the video footage of the Pentagon
strike which was promptly seized by the FBI (even though disclosure
would have put an end to all the wild "no plane, missile strike"
theories of Meyssan and others), and the notes from the now infamous
closed-door Bush/Cheney "visit" with the 9/11 Commission, which were
Berlet's approach to discrediting "conspiracy theory" reinforces what
can be called the "disbelief" factor, as in "I just can't believe that
the Bush Administration/US Government/Americans/people would do such a
thing!" Although this knee-jerk emotional response is understandable
and easily explainable within the context of human psychology, it does
not amount to a logical defense of the "official" story. In the
absence of any substantive debate, another psychological factor
operated alongside the "disbelief" factor: As Griffin states, "the
Bush administration created a halo over 9/11, so it became not only
unpatriotic, but almost sacrilegious to raise any questions." The
"anti-war movement" and "Left" media, ostensibly dissident by nature
and thus obliged to question, instead pulled right into lockstep with
the government and corporate media, rubber-stamping the "official"
version of events.
Griffin did end up writing a lengthy response to Berlet's misleading
critique < http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GRI405A.html >, but the
damage had already been done. Goodman never really inquired beyond the
"straw man" arguments Berlet kept pounding, and no other "Left" media
outlet with the audience of Democracy NOW! has touched the story since.
It is important to note that Democracy NOW! was awarded a $75,000 Ford
Foundation grant in 2002
nt_id=209798 "to continue incorporating the aftermath of the September
11th attack into future broadcasts," and received a further $150,000
from Ford in 2004
< http://www.fordfound.org/search/results.cfm >.
Emanuel Sferios says the Ford Foundation does not have to explicitly
tell Democracy NOW! how they want 9/11 to be covered. He explains that
"Democracy NOW! will simply self-censor, because they want future
money from the Ford Foundation. It's also important to note that Amy
Goodman coined a new, pejorative phrase to dismiss the 9/11 Truth
Movement. She is the first in history, as far as I know, to refer to
us as a "conspiracy theory movement."
The most glaring irony in all of this is that it was Goodman herself
who uttered these words:
"I think the media has reached an all-time low in this country. And
that is a terrible violation of what our profession is supposed to do.
We are supposed to hold those in power accountable. We're not supposed
to cozy up to those in power, not supposed get the perks of the
powerful. We are supposed to be there to, if not keep the politicians
honest, show what's going on. And it is very serious now because we're
talking about wartime... And when the media acts as a conveyer belt
for the lies of the administration, we not only are violating our
responsibility, but those lies take lives."
Furthering these sins of omission regarding 9/11 is the "Left's"
refusal to address any of the voluminous evidence uncovered by
controversial journalist Michael Ruppert <
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ > in his book Crossing the Rubicon:
The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.
=1114178403/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5627087-8649532?v=glance&s ... >
Ruppert's investigation, the most thorough of any effort thus far
including the Kean Commission, has been publicly attacked more than
any other independent effort, which for many is a testament to its
In what seemed like a coordinated effort, David Corn and Norman
Solomon, purported "Left" journalists, through The Nation and Pacifica
Radio, repeatedly pilloried Ruppert for almost two years before his
book was releasedâ"without once addressing the evidence presented.
The sum total of their response to Rubicon was to engage in a series
of ad hominem attacks portraying Ruppert as mentally unstable.
Although Ruppert is an impassioned, domineering, even frequently
alienating character with a classic type-A personality (perhaps he
could be described as "difficult"?) who has very little patience for
those who question his work, he is anything but insane, and his
personality is not all that different from many of the personalities
we have been discussing. What is never taken into consideration when
discussing his "psychology", however, is that Ruppert has a lot of
reason to be sensitive about the issue of government corruption and
malfeasance. Multiple attempts have been made on his life for trying
to expose CIA and LAPD complicity in the South Central crack-cocaine
trade. Anyone familiar with the history of disinformation tactics will
recognize the Corn/Solomon attacks as a tried and true method of
discrediting not only an author or researcher, but an entire line of
It should be noted that the MacArthur-funded Nation, for which Corn is
a staff writer, has ties back to the CIA and its former director
William Casey, and the Manhattan Institute <
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/ >, and Chief Editor Katrina vanden
Heuval's father was involved in "Operation Mockingbird"
bird.html >, a CIA project originating in the early days of the Cold
War to buy influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and put
reporters on the CIA payroll. Solomon is the Director of the Institute
for Public Accuracy in Washington and is the ostensible head of FAIR
(Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), funded by the Ford and
Rockefeller Foundations, Working Assets group, and the Shumann Foundation.
A Story That Would Outrage Anyoneâ"But No One Knows About
The "Left" has also consistently refused, on any level, to report or
act on the established connection between the Bush Family and the Nazi
Party during the 1930's, 40's, and early 50's.
John Buchanan, the charismatic, relentless independent journalist from
Miami wrote about his inability to get any mainstream media source to
pick up his New Hampshire Gazette story, "Bushâ"Nazi Dealings
Continued Until 1951" <
tail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2 >in his 2004 book, Fixing America:
Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media, and the
Even though Buchanan's reporting was based on facts that came directly
from declassified official documents currently in the National
Archives, not one single mainstream news source agreed to even look at
the government documents, which chronicled the long history of
collaboration between Bush's grandfathers Prescott Bush and George
Herbert Walker, Prescott Bush's employer A. Averell Harriman of Brown
Brothers Harriman, and Nazi industrialist and financier Fritz Thyssen.
Between 1942 and 1951, under the "Trading with the Enemy Act," the US
Government seized 33 Bush-Harriman-Nazi businesses and client assets.
But instead of facing a firing squad for treason during war time,
Prescott Bush pocketed $1.5 Million from the liquidation of the first
and largest of the 33 businesses, the Union Banking Corporation,
principle investor in the Silesian-American Corporation which used
slave-labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp for mining in
Poland. None of the principles in the deal were ever brought to justice.
This story should have resurfaced every time one of the Bush men ran
for or was appointed to public office. Instead, it was spun
relentlessly, and eventually buried. Only The Guardian of London
eventually picked up on this story in one subsequent article nearly a
year later titled, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to
power" < http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html >
Buchanan goes on to say:
"Perhaps more troubling, and certainly more surprising, not even
left-leaning media, 'alternative media' outlets, or media watchdog
groups would touch the story. The Bush-bashing editor of the Nation,
Katrina vanden Heuvel, and her assistant Peggy Suttles, both declined
to pursue the story... Don Hazen, a founder of alt-media online
syndicate, Alternet, also refused to report the story... Norman
Solomon, a regular op-ed contributor to The New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post, initially
agreed to help get the story out "to the world" until he discovered
that his four bread-and-butter newspapers had all turned down the
documents... Later, even the Center for American Progress, a George
Soros-funded liberal think tank in Washingtonâ"headed by former
Clinton Chief of Staff John Podestaâ"would refuse to acknowledge or
help expose the Bush-Nazi connection."
(Ed's note: Alternet also refused to consider this article for
Although history tends to ignore it, the United States' rise to global
dominance was largely made possible by former Nazis who were smuggled
into the country during and after the war to work in secret weapons
labs, and lay the foundation for what would become the controlled
mass-media. Nazi scientists invented the technology for the jet
engine, the ballistic missile, the nuclear bomb, and other classified
weapons and surveillance technologies that both the Americans and the
Soviets appropriated for use in the Cold War.
These parent companies of the Left Gatekeeper foundations became part
of what Dwight D. Eisenhower coined in his farewell address the
"Military-Industrial Complex," which since the end of WWII has
expropriated an estimated $15 Trillion in American taxpayer money for
"Defense" spending. That, as author Joel Andreas notes <
tures/dorrellandreas.php >, "is more than the amount of money spent on
all the existing man-made wealth of the US: that is every building,
highway, park, factory, car, and what have you."
CONCLUSION: The Death of Authentic Resistance
Michael Novick of the Anti-Racist Action network has been around a
long time, and has a list of bona fides pages long. He has seen many
an organization come and go, and he believes that the
501(c)3/NGO/not-for-profit corporate model has been the death of
popular movements and authentic resistance.
"Such organizations vacuumed up the flotsam and jetsam of the
resistance movements of the 60s and 70s, gave them paid staff
positions, and neutered them. This was true long before the emergence
of the current round of the 'anti-war movement'. It happened to the
women's movement and the Black and Chicano liberation struggles as far
back as the 70s. In the late 80s, most of the anti-racist projects
that sprung up to deal with the first wave of Neo-Nazism went the
board and staff, grant-writing model, with the result that they lost
both their militancy and their anti-establishment spark, making them
politically irrelevant. Most went out of business as other vogues took
precedence with funders."
There is no doubt that this madness must stop, and yet, where is the
"anti-war movement" here when we need them most? Not reading this
article, for sure, even though it was written for those who would
attack just-cause critics of the "anti-war movement", those who lament
that they have no other funding options and who can bring themselves
to rationalize taking blood money, those who put their own names and
careers ahead of the people they purportedly representâ"and for all
those who recognize this hypocrisy and want something more, something
better. Though it is difficult and may require sacrifice and even
dismantling this corrupted system, we must look at how our movements
come to dance with the devil, and turn into the very things that we
once so despised
To view the complete "Left Gatekeepers" chart go here.
Charles Shaw is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Newtopia, and has
been deeply involved in the anti-war movement since the bombing of
Afghanistan. Newtopia Magazine is a member group of United for Peace
Thanks to Orb Standard
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW