Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Charles Shaw: Regulated Resistance

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Charles Shaw: Regulated Resistance Regulated Resistance: The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left CHARLES SHAW, Newtopia Magazine
    Message 1 of 1 , May 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles Shaw: Regulated Resistance

      Regulated Resistance: The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left
      Newtopia Magazine

      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€"
      Henry Adams
      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 and
      outspoken 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
      < http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_61/ai_7
      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 <
      http://questionsquestions.net/topics/left_gatekeepers.html >.

      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
      disciplinarian." <
      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 globe.

      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
      Attacks," http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221
      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
      promptly confiscated.

      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.
      < http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865715408/qid
      =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"
      < http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mocking
      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
      Religious Right.

      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
      and Justice.

      Thanks to Orb Standard



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.