Wall St protest gaining strengh?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

The point is that the protests and the orgranzations behind them have been developed, organized, and funded by the same institutional interests that are behind the tremendous wealth transfer we've experienced in the last several years.

Finally, don't pull the "illuminati" bullshit on me, it's embarrassing to you. Do you know nothing of history? The techniques we are witnessing are extremely old, and it's quite unbelievable that so many are still unable to see the "techniques" (see Jacques Ellul) being employed.

Indulge me then.

What's the point? What's the endgame? Cui Bono?

[c1ue]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I've been supporting the general message of the protests, and I don't speak Serbian. They can barely eat in Belgrade, never mind organize a world revolution.

Their per capita GDP at PPP is $6,267. Do you really think they're the illuminati?

reggie sees conspiracies everywhere, like the kid sees dead people in "Sixth Sense"

While it is true there are some shady NGO as well as .gov ties to the various color revolutions, it is far less clear why these revolutionary tactics would be deployed in the US against the very sponsors of said organizations.

It would indeed be interesting to see how Soros and the like truly feel about 'Occupy Wall Street' - which is morphing into Occupy The City in London and so forth.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

reggie sees conspiracies everywhere, like the kid sees dead people in "Sixth Sense"

While it is true there are some shady NGO as well as .gov ties to the various colour revolutions, it is far less clear why these revolutionary tactics would be deployed in the US against the very sponsors of said organisations.

It would indeed be interesting to see how Soros and the like truly feel about 'Occupy Wall Street' - which is morphing into Occupy The City in London and so forth.

I had a funny feeling this poster would chime-in with a "comment". When this poster can finally put forth a plausible explanation for the Vietnam War, the properly contextualises the war given Geopolitical goals, then I will start to give merit to said poster's "comments". Until then, I view these as more from someone firmly in the grips of the beehive.

By the way, Soros is NOT going to communicate anything to the public that isn't strategically advantageous to himself.

Indulge me then.

What's the point? What's the endgame? Cui Bono?

The point is System Change, deceptively sold to the public as beneficial and emanating from grassroots interests, and thereby "acceptable" . The technique has been around for quite some time, but refined by Marx, Lenin, and the academics at the Frankfurt Institute.

As I mentioned previously, research the board at Carnegie. Below is a list of Officers, do these sound like grass roots or institutional representatives to you?

Officers
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/about...ees/index.html

Jonathan E. Colby - 03/26/09
Jonathan E. Colby is managing director at the Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C.


Jonathan Gage - 03/26/09
Jonathan Gage's career in publishing has spanned roles as editor, international business journalist and magazine publisher. Most recently, he was the publisher of "strategy+business" magazine in New York.


Stephen D. Hibbard - 03/26/09
Stephen D. Hibbard is a partner at Shearman & Sterling, LLP's Litigation Group.


Robert G. Shaw - 03/26/09
Robert G. Shaw is a managing director of Sea Advisors Fund LLC.

Further, why is the Int'l Republican Institute sending a US Army representative to OPTOR to coach them?

"Retired U.S. Army Colonel Robert Helvey was sent by the International Republican Institute to teach seminars in nonviolent strategy for a group of Otpor students in the spring of 2000."

http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/fi...ert-helvey.php

Lastly, why are the so-called revolutionaries establishing a dialectic between 99% verus 1% socioeconomic factions? What typically happens to dialectics within society?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I had a funny feeling this poster would chime-in with a "comment". When this poster can finally put forth a plausible explanation for the Vietnam War, the properly contextualises the war given Geopolitical goals, then I will start to give merit to said poster's "comments". Until then, I view these as more from someone firmly in the grips of the beehive.

By the way, Soros is NOT going to communicate anything to the public that isn't strategically advantageous to himself.



The point is System Change, deceptively sold to the public as beneficial and emanating from grassroots interests, and thereby "acceptable" . The technique has been around for quite some time, but refined by Marx, Lenin, and the academics at the Frankfurt Institute.

As I mentioned previously, research the board at Carnegie. Below is a list of Officers, do these sound like grass roots or institutional representatives to you?

Further, why is the Int'l Republican Institute sending a US Army representative to OPTOR to coach them?

Lastly, why are the so-called revolutionaries establishing a dialectic between 99% verus 1% socioeconomic factions? What typically happens to dialectics within society?

I'm not that smart. Could you spell out simply who is pulling the strings and to what end?

[lektrode]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I'm not that smart. Could you spell out simply who is pulling the strings and to what end?

me neither... but it appears that its time 'to look prezidenshul' again:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...688817698.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of up to 100 combat-equipped U.S. troops to central Africa to help hunt down the leaders of a rebel force known as the Lord's Resistance Army.
A senior administration official said 12 troops have been deployed so far under what he called a ... (paywall)

let me get this one straight - the was NO justifiable reason to go into iraq, but suddenly theres yet _another_ reason to go into africa?

hey!
going to war over oil is _one_ thing, while libya is something completely different, but just WITF is he doin now? (cept an attempt to distract from the occupiers)

i wanna revisit the topic of: "worst prez EVER" sometime after the first of the year, cuz IMHO ole geedubya, the moron he was, is gonna look like a phreakin _hero_ yet, MARK MY WORDS.

and i can hardly _wait_ to hear what krugman has to say now: "the military industrial complex is as good a 'stimulus' as any" - no doubt!

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

As I mentioned previously, research the board at Carnegie. Below is a list of Officers, do these sound like grass roots or institutional representatives to you?

If I do this research, what will I find? Instead of just a list of names, how about a little narrative to make it clear what you are getting at?

Further, why is the Int'l Republican Institute sending a US Army representative to OPTOR to coach them?

I don't know. Why don't you enlighten us? Instead of name-dropping these two groups, how about a little more information about them and how this information supports whatever point you are making?

Lastly, why are the so-called revolutionaries establishing a dialectic between 99% verus 1% socioeconomic factions? What typically happens to dialectics within society?

I have my own ideas as to why, and this article mentioned in another thread outlines them pretty well. But I get the impression you think there is something else going on. So why don't you come out and state it directly rather than asking questions like this? Okay, then, in your view what does typically happen to dialectics within society? It seems like you think asking this question reinforces your argument in some way, when for me it does nothing to clear up your position. Can you provide us with the answers to all these questions you've posed, along with some material supporting your views?

Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch on 9/11 conspiracists:

They ask questions, yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that’s not up to them. So who is it up to? Whom do they expect to answer their questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or they simply rebound with another question.

Now, I wouldn't want you to be lumped in with these types, so just for the sake of those of us who are are little slow -

How about instead of asking insinuating questions, positing the use of "techniques" of obscure French anarchist philosophers or "academics at the Frankfurt Institute", and such, you make some of your own "plausible" assertions, backed up with some evidence? Then I will be better able to judge if your claims have merit. Otherwise, the list of questions and murky associations doesn't lend much to your credibility.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I'm not that smart. Could you spell out simply who is pulling the strings and to what end?

What we have is the World that Plato wanted and discussed, a world where a small superclass, in association with a larger technocracy of institutional operators, "govern" society employing methods that are highly disguised, and mostly undetectable by the public. Plato discussed the technique, what the Greeks called kubernetes, or what we call today: Cybernetics: the science of communications and control within systems - choice over instinct.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

If I do this research, what will I find? Instead of just a list of names, how about a little narrative to make it clear what you are getting at?

I don't know. Why don't you enlighten us? Instead of name-dropping these two groups, how about a little more information about them and how this information supports whatever point you are making?

I have my own ideas as to why, and this article mentioned in another thread outlines them pretty well. But I get the impression you think there is something else going on. So why don't you come out and state it directly rather than asking questions like this? Okay, then, in your view what does typically happen to dialectics within society? It seems like you think asking this question reinforces your argument in some way, when for me it does nothing to clear up your position. Can you provide us with the answers to all these questions you've posed, along with some material supporting your views?

Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch on 9/11 conspiracists:

Now, I wouldn't want you to be lumped in with these types, so just for the sake of those of us who are are little slow -

How about instead of asking insinuating questions, positing the use of "techniques" of obscure French anarchist philosophers or "academics at the Frankfurt Institute", and such, you make some of your own "plausible" assertions, backed up with some evidence? Then I will be better able to judge if your claims have merit. Otherwise, the list of questions and murky associations doesn't lend much to your credibility.

I ask questions in order to initiate thought in the mind of the reade. Most American's brains are wired such that they will attack thought that is beyond a certain comfort level.... this is a chemical reaction that is not overtly controlled by the reader, but exists to subvert the message, nonetheless. To understand my message, the reader is going to have to be willing to undertake some research on their own. Asking me to spoon feed you will not work. Only you can rewire your own brain. If you want to research this further, start with acclaimed brain researcher Joe LaDoux. And as far as Cockburn goes, he is untrustworthy. And this quote you posted of his is deliberately designed to attack those in society who ask too many questions.

As far as the "protestors", their use is employed to usurp the anti-system message before one can organically develop, and then to utilise a system-developed anti-system message to enact change of their liking. For example, we could be witnessing a Helter Skelter technique. Or, in other words, a scenaro where masses of peaceful protests are everywhere. Terrorists are then employed to attack the protestors, invoking a global peace keeper coalition of forces under the benevolent eye of the UN to 'save' them and "save" society from the choas, bringing in a new system with the "changes". We'll just have to wait and see.

From what I've seen so far, it appears that the protestors are being used to implement a "People's Assembly" framework, replacing our current Constitutional framework. Of course, this means some form of Democracy, or governance by the mob. And in today's world, the mob can be convinced to do anything.

As far as the dialectic being introduced by the system-generated-protestors, it's purpose is to start a process to synthesise the two opposing parties. So, what we have is a call for the lower socio-economic classes to attack those that have any real net-worth remaining. This eliminates the only socio-economic group remaining with the means to oppose the system and its proposed changes. Please refer back to this interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski, where he "alludes" to this "attack".

Finally, for this particular response, I have posted in this forum videos explaining Soft Power, as presented by the former head of the JFK School of Gov't at Harvard. These videos start to explain soft power and its growing importance in today's society. Within the context of this understanding, one must then review the "Narratives" (ie story) that are being currently created and communicated. To this end, as one example, we have the recent Reuters' presentation, illustrating despair, chaos, and system failure.

Soft Power's Narrative: "Time of Crisis" by Reuters

One can see this narrative in all media. The goal here is system change, which is predicated on system failure. Hence, the public must absolutely be convinced that the system has failed in order to embrace change. This is the message that the media is sending, and this is the message that the protestors are also helping to communicate.

[c1ue]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I had a funny feeling this poster would chime-in with a "comment". When this poster can finally put forth a plausible explanation for the Vietnam War, the properly contextualises the war given Geopolitical goals, then I will start to give merit to said poster's "comments". Until then, I view these as more from someone firmly in the grips of the beehive.

Given that you've been spanked time and again over factual errors in your own positions, I'd think you'd at least try to provide factually correct information for future assertions.

Notice also you've still not answered the question: if Soros and what not are in fact behind the (failed) color revolutions - which can be completely understood as ways to engender governments in ex-Soviet Union nations which can be used to benefit said rentiers - how exactly does a popular movement specifically being against Wall Street rentiers be beneficial?

The Tea Party, for example, can be easily seen to be a way to aggregate angry Americans into a completely goofy far right tokenist movement.

Occupy Wall Street, however, and at least so far despite many attempts to hijack it, has focused only on gathering support.

While certainly it is possible that OWS will at some point cough up a tokenist platform, it is far from clear this is the case.

Which returns us to the original question: you point up this and that, but you have yet to actually show a definitive link between OWS and any of the conspiratorial movements in question.

Merely being obscure doesn't buy you any credibility here.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

As time permits, I'll see if I can dig-up IRS Form 990 for both Carnegie Council and Albert Einstein institute, as this will show all of their grants, with a paper-trail leading to OPTOR and/or CANVAS.

In the meantime, those with interest can review a speech given by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) at the US Naval Academy discussing the Frankfurt Institute and some of its methods. I think some will see the protesters parallels with the Cultural Marxists' techniques.

What is the Frankfurt School?
Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)
Copyright 1 August 1999
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19014703/F...ld-L-Atkinson-



If you have absorbed any of the background material presented in this series of essays on "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy," you should be quite concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychic intimidation and indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt [1]. The 'facilitators' and civilian professors in the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the Academy are Wundtians all. The 'cultural Marxism' that has invaded our military academies and other military institutions is pervasive. As a result, these future naval officers will not have an understanding of the essence of what they are chosen to protect, that is, American civilization [2] -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization.

One must wonder who 'they' are. Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?

Indeed, a thoughtful person should ask himself or herself whether or not all this 'change' from America's traditional culture is simply a random set of events played out by a random set of players, all independent of each other -- all disconnected from any central premise or guidance. It is entirely possible that chance is at work here and all of these 'threads' of American culture are the random workings of the human intellect (the pursuit of what is possible, vice what is appropriate) in a free, democratic society.

But suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes!

If such a core group could be found, then it would still depend on your personal 'world view' as to its significance. If you believe in the 'blind watchmaker,' that is, all cosmic and social events are random and guided only by the laws of nature, 'evolutionary' in the sense of competing with other random events for survival in a 'stochastic' world, you may choose to believe that such a core group was meaningless -- it may have existed but so what? It may have been only one of an uncountably large number of such 'groups' in the world's history. And you may believe that any particular group's 'window of opportunity' to influence future generations was passed by and did little to influence the course of America's history.

If you believe, instead, that nature has a 'design,' and that all events can be connected and we humans can make sense out of many of them if we will only 'connect all of the dots,' then you may believe that this small core group has great influence, even today, in American Culture. If this is your world view, you may (but not necessarily) even believe in a 'conspiracy. and 'conspirators' which and who aim to alter our culture on a vast scale.

It is clear, however, that irrespective of one's 'world view,' it is informative to at least know of such a core group (if it, indeed, existed), what it believed, what it set out to accomplish, and what methods it followed to take action on its beliefs.

Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. That is, history identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'

'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [3]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.

By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [4]. "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [5] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction.

Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying [6] of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience.

The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence. This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept!

What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere . The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians [7] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story.

The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [8,9]., Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.

William S. Lind relates [10] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [11]. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.

Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:

"One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ... there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ... what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."

This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.

Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West. By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.

The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book [12] by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change [13].'

The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.

'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence.

As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers. What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [14]. George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [15] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture.

Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has taken a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School.

How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed [16] that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.

It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [17] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [18] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [19] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.

By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work. In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay, [20] "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s."

Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal [21] "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives. Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [22]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.

One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [23] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.

The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'

Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [24] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.

But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America . It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path [25] taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture.

Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [26]. They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'

The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [27] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.

If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Possible other reading that may be of interest, as background, to the non-institutionalised open-minded....

IRAN: THE NEXT DOMINO IN THE GLOBALIST GAME
Dr. K R Bolton
FPJ
http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.c...lobalist-game/

“Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks.” — Ivan Marovic, ex-instructor, Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies, Serbia.[1]

With the staging of a second[2] attempt at a “green revolution” in Iran in the wake of the overthrow of the regimes in Tunisia[3] and Egypt[4] by groups primarily sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, Open Society Institute, Freedom House, USAID and a myriad of their fronts; the question might arise as to whether the turmoil inflicted on Egypt and Tunisia was intended as a prelude to the major target: Iran.

Iraq, Iran and Syria were targeted years ago as priorities for “regime change.” The now well-known letter addressed to President George W. Bush by the Project for a New American Century should be recounted. PNAC outlined a plan of action that was put into affect, starting with the elimination of Saddam Hussein. Iran and Syria were next marked for elimination under the pretext of the “war on terrorism”:

We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.[5]

Among the numerous political and foreign policy luminaries who were signatories to the PNAC letter was Frank Gaffney who, as stated below, is on the Advisory Board of The Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

America’s post-Cold War doctrine for world hegemony was outlined in a comprehensive PNAC document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses.[6] The post-Cold Warriors outlined their plan for a new “Cold War” or “clash of civilizations” that involves not only Islam but all regimes, cultures, religions, traditions and ideologies that do not fit into “a new American century.” The aim was stated unequivocally:

Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[7]

Egypt since then became a problem, despite the cliché-ridden ballyhoo about Mubarak being Washington’s man. Perhaps the clincher that marked him for destruction was the geopolitical problem that he was presenting to the USA in the Sudan:

On Nov. 3, 2009 Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit stated that within the previous five years Egypt had invested more than $87 million into projects in southern Sudan, including hospitals, schools and power stations, “in hope of convincing the people of southern Sudan to choose unity over secession.” Towards the end of the Bush regime the U.S. Defense Department established the Africa Command (AFRICOM),[8] a primary concern of this new US regional command being the establishment of a massive military base in southern Sudan.[9] It was in US interests that southern Sudan should secede. Keith Harmon Snow, writing on Africom’s agenda for the Sudan, states:

In Darfur, Sudan, the U.S. government agenda is to win control of natural resources and leverage the Arab government into a corner and, at last, establish a more ‘friendly’ government that will suit the corporate interests of the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and Israel.[10]

Snow named some of the organizations involved in subverting Sudan, which include those that have been involved with subverting Egypt, Tunisia, Iran…

Several major think tanks — read: propaganda, lobbying and pressure — behind the destabilization of Sudan include the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Center for American Progress, Center for Security Policy, International Rescue Committee and International Crises Group. Individuals from seemingly diverse positions of the political and ideological spectrum run these organizations, which are ultra-nationalist capitalist[11] organizations bent on global military-economic domination.

Now Egypt is well on course to becoming as subordinate as all the other states that have undergone “color revolutions” and “regime change” courtesy of NED, Soros, IRI, et al. Presently, the new Egyptian constitution is being drafted by those with the necessary globalist credentials to ensure that Egypt can enter the world commonwealth of nations as a lickspittle to the USA. Hisham al-Bastawisy, a leading Egyptian judicial official and oppositionist, now heading the Constitutional Amendment Committee, states that a new Constitution should be ready in a month, and that “civil society groups” — a euphemism for subversive organizations funded by NED, Soros, et al, — have prepared several drafts. These organizations include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.[12]

Soros’ Open Society Institute funds the Arabic Network for Human Rights.[13]ANHR works in alliance with similar organizations particular in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. NED funds The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.[14]

Meanwhile, the National Democratic Institute is training Egypt’s future political class to ensure that the country gets a Western-style democracy where citizens will have the opportunity to vote for tweedledum or tweedledee as the “left” and “right” wings of an American imposed political consensus, as in other countries “liberated” by “regime change.” Leslie Campbell, the National Democratic Institute’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, states that NDI, which has been in Egypt since 2005,[15] “is stepping up its long-standing efforts to train political parties and domestic election monitors in Egypt ahead of the transitional campaign and elections.”[16]

While the Gulf States can be mopped up, what remains is Syria, Libya and Iran.

Wikileaks US Cable on Iran

While liberaldom in conjunction with the neocons is getting bellicose towards those few who are suggesting that the “people’s revolutions” are not much more than the excrescences of US based plutocracy and globalism, the revelation of a Wikileaks cable provides hard evidence for the cynical view.

A cable from the US Embassy in London, sent to US Secretary of State Clinton, and embassies in Ankara, Turkmenistan (Ashgabat), Baghdad, Baku, Berlin, Bern, Kabul, Paris, Vienna, Dubai, Istanbul, and the US Mission to the UN, provides some important leads on the troubles that soon emerged in Iran.[17]

The cable states the US Embassy “supports and approves” of the funding of six proposals submitted by Iranian contacts in the UK that also involved those taking part in workshops at Durham University. Among the recommendations supported by the Embassy is the funding of a group of Iranian students in London with contacts in Iran. The US Embassy cable then provides commentary on the workshops being held at Durham University through which it is proposed to fund the Iranian dissidents. The recommendations are:

-$75,000 funding (six months in duration), under the auspices of Durham University’s School of Governmental Affairs… for a workshop, entitled “Forum to Discuss Iranian NGOs Concerning Women Advocacy.” The workshop’s purpose would be to build links between NGOs inside Iran and their UK-U.S. counterparts for training, networking, knowledge-sharing and increased public awareness, with a goal of joint cooperation between Iran and U.S. universities and NGOs working to empower women.
An ambitious project at Durham University, entitled “Iran-U.S. Civil Society Engagement” (lasting 12 months, asking $123,050 in funding) which aims at bridging “the communicative gap between influential Iranian individuals affiliated with strategic research centers” and their U.S. counterparts…
This program includes discussing Iranian ethnic relations, and the use of social media including YouTube and Radio Fardo. Radio Fardo is part of a US Government propaganda network, being the Iranian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,[18] based in Prague, the Czech Republic; a state that was one of the early results of a “velvet revolution.”

-$91,700 to inculcate Iranian seminarians with Western ideas on theology. The project proposal is entitled “Forum To Discuss Iranian Seminary Students and Their Impact on Reform In Iran,” and would emphasize themes of human rights, democracy, accountability and rule of law. This attempt to subvert and use Iranian Shiite theologians is considered of particular importance, in conjunction with recruiting secular youth of the type that has been at the forefront of other “color revolutions’ around the world. The cable states:
There has been only limited western interaction with the clerical sector, portions of which have in recent decades provided intellectual and political resistance both to the former Pahlavi regime as well as to the current regime’s ideology of “Velayet e Faqih” (rule of Islamic jurists), which, though based on the writings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, is nevertheless theologically repugnant to many Shiite thinkers and believers; such ferment is centered in Iran’s seminaries. Outreach to Iranian Shiite seminarians could complement USG and Western interaction with the more secular, Western-oriented elements of Iran’s political class.

-$75,00 for a program to train journalists for opposing the regime. This would comprise a five-day workshop at Durham University involving ten Iranian journalists. Additionally another program of

-$75,000 to create dissident media.

-A further program at Durham was to be the cultivating of Iranian local officials such as those from municipal councils. These, it was suggested, might provide the US with valuable contacts for what can only be regarded as spying.

-There is a request of a $48,400 grant for a one-day conference of students to form a united front to organize cultural and education exchanges.

Durham University

When Wikileaks published the cable in February 2011, Durham University issued a brief statement only responding that the university received money from a “broad range” of funders but remained true to its principles of “independent academic discovery.”[19] The student newspaper commented:

The cable suggests that the University was offered and may have accepted over $400,000 from the U.S. State Department for running a series of seminars “under the auspices of Durham University’s School of Governmental Affairs”. The cable dates from April 2008 and emphasizes the usefulness of Durham’s ties with high-ranking Iranian officials as “political cover” for the projects.[20]

Funding subversive programs

The latest report (2009) for the National Endowment for Democracy funding in Iran is vague but alludes to grants totaling $674,506.

The International Republican Institute’s chairman, Sen. John McCain, speaking at a NED conference lauded NED’s annual Democracy Award going in 2010 to “Iran’s Green Movement.” The honor was gained by Iranians having rioted in an abortive “Green Revolution” in 2009, when they spat the dummy after President Ahmadinejad was re-elected. Presumably only certain electoral outcomes are accepted as “democratic” by the globalists. If an electorate chooses by majority not to pursue that path then it is not truly “democratic” and other means must be found to introduce the correct form of democracy. McCain declared:

My friends: If there were ever any doubt, the birth of the Green Movement over the past year should convince us that Iran will have a democratic future. That future may be delayed for awhile, but it will not be denied. And now is the time for the United States to position ourselves squarely on the right side of Iranian history – on the side of courageous Iranian reformers like Shiva Nazar Ahari.[21]

The riots in the aftermath of President Ahmadinejad’s re-election in 2009 would have been about as “spontaneous” (sic) as the “color revolutions” in Eastern European, Central Asia, Egypt, and Tunisia. A report run by USA Today in 2009 stated of these covert programs:

The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to “promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,” according to documents on the agency’s website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30.[22]

NED funding for previous years is easier to identify. In 2005 NED gave grants totalling $4,898,000. The recipients included the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, mentioned below, and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity of $185,000. The latter program included training Iranian labor leaders. It should be recalled that ACILS works closely with free market globalists.[23] Institute of World Affairs (IWA) $45,800, to train jurists on how to bastardise Sharia law via Western liberal jurisprudence. International Republican Institute $110,000, for the purpose of linking Iranian oppositionists with international networks. National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) $64,000, to link Iranian groups with international organizations, and to assist with the English translation of Farsi materials.[24]

Going ahead to NEDs 2008 reporting on Iran, the recipients included: Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, $140,000. Association for Civic Society in Iran (ACSI) $80,000, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) $141,793, which fosters free market capitalism on a global scale in solidarity with their comrades in the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.[25] Research Initiative for Contemporary Iran (RICI), $87,000.

While Soros’ Open Society Foundations claim they have not operated in Iran since 2007, this is disingenuous. The Soros networks fund a colossal number of fronts and allied organizations, including those with a presence in Iran. The conference of the Digital Youth of Central Asia, which is funded by Soros but which does not seem to be a Soros front per se, includes Iranian youth activists whose presence was mentioned at the Digital Youth December 2010 conference held in Tajikistan.[26]

Iran Moves Against Globalists

In January 2010 Iran blacklisted numerous organizations regarded as subversive, including:

1. Soros Foundation — Open Society
2. Woodrow Wilson Center
3. Freedom House [27]
4. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[28]
5. National Democratic Institute (NDI)[29]
6. International Republican Institute (IRI)[30]
7. Institute for Democracy in East Europe (EEDI)[31]
8. Democracy Center in East Europe (CDEE)
9. Ford Foundation
10. Rockefeller Brothers Foundation
11. Hoover Institute at Stanford Foundation
12. Hivos Foundation, Netherlands
13. Menas, U.K.
14. United Nations Association (USA)
15. Carnegie Foundation
16. Wilton Park, U.K.
17. Search for Common Ground (SFCG)
18. Population Council
19. Washington Institute for Near East Policy
20. Aspen Institute
21. American Enterprise Institute
22. New America Foundation
23. Smith Richardson Foundation
24. German Marshal Fund (US, Germany and Belgium)
25. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
26. Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation at Yale University
27. Meridian Center
28. Foundation for Democracy in Iran
29. American Initiative Institute
30. Private Trade International Center
31. American Center for International Labor Solidarity[32]
32. International Center for Democracy Transfer
33. Albert Einstein Institute
34. World Movement for Democracy[33]
35. The Democratic Youth Network
36. Democracy Information and Communication Technology Group
37. International Parliamentarian Movement for Democracy
38. RIGA Institute
39. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
40. Council on Foreign Relations
41. Foreign Policy Society, Germany
42. MEMRI
43. Centre for Democracy Studies, U.K.
44. Yale University and all its affiliates
45. National Defense University, U.S.
46. Iran Human Rights Documents Center
47. American Center FLENA
48. Brookings Institution Saban Center
49. Human Rights Watch
50. New America Foundation[34]

The nature and extent of the Iranian blacklist indicates just how aware the Iranian administration is as to the character of world globalist subversion. Every nation that aims to maintain its sovereignty could do well in consulting the Iranians.

Looking at several of the blacklisted organizations, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, “receives approximately 50% of its support from private U.S. Foundations, 34% of its support from private European foundations, and 16% of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)…”[35]

The Foundation for Democracy in Iran was founded in 1995 with grants from NED. The Governing Board includes: FDI Chairman, Nader Afshar, who “has worked extensively with the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America Farsi Service;” and Secretary-Treasurer, William Nojay, who has worked in Ukraine and Afghanistan for the International Republican Institute.

FDI Board Member Herbert I London, is president of the Hudson Instituted, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The FDI Advisory Board includes: Menashe Amir, Persian language broadcaster for Israel Radio International; Pooya Dayanim, president of the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee; Frank Gaffney, former Reagan appointee and NATO advisor, founder of the Center for Security Policy, a neocon think tank whose slogan is “peace through strength;” Amil Imani, director of Former Muslims United, and founder of Arabs for Israel; Reza Kahlili, a CIA agent who had worked in Iran for more than 20 years; R. James Woolsey, U.S. Director of the CIA 1993–1995.

FDI Founding Board Members: Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Trustee, Freedom House[36]; Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; Dr. Mehdi Rouhani, “spiritual leader” of Shiites in Europe.[37]

A major oversight of the Iranian blacklist seems to be the Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), headquartered in Serbia, and having their origins in the Optor (“Resistance”) movement that helped toppled Milosevic. Having screwed up Serbia for the benefit of international big business, the fine young idealists who were at the forefront of the “color revolution” thought it would be a noble idea to impart their experiences to those in other countries who might want their nations subservient to US foreign policy, their economies wracked by debt and privatization and their traditional cultures replaced for the culture of the global shopping mall, American sit-coms and MTV. They provided the training for Kmara in Georgia, which led the revolt or “Rose Revolution” against Shevardnadze in 2003 after he had the temerity to win the presidential election. “It was followed by the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, where former Otpor activists spent months advising the Pora (“It’s Time”) youth movement.”[38] While Rosenberg claims that Optor now gives Washington “a wide berth” after many felt betrayed when it was found that the organization had been funded by the USA, despite denials, CANVAS nonetheless continues to receive funding from Freedom House, and the International Republican Institute,[39] so denials about Washington funding are quite disingenuous.

CANVAS provided training for the Egyptian youth of the April 6th Movement that provided the impetus for the Egyptian revolt, Mohamed Adel, travelling to Serbia in 2009 for instruction. Tina Rosenberg enthuses:

They have worked with democracy advocates from more than 50 countries. They have advised groups of young people on how to take on some of the worst governments in the world — and in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, the Maldives, and now Egypt, those young people won.[40]

Another CANVAS ally is The Albert Einstein Institute, one of the organizations blacklisted by Iran, founded in 1983 by Gene Sharp, the ideological and strategic guru of the “color revolutions,” who apparently got his start as the intellectual mentor of “velvet revolutions” when his first revolutionary manual, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) was funded by the Pentagon via the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Sharp is stated by the Iranian Government to be the primary inspiration for the “Green movement.” A US press report states:

In a mass trial of some 100 key reformist figures this past August, Iranian prosecutors charged that postelection protests were “completely planned in advance and proceeded according to a timetable and the stages of a velvet coup [such] that more than 100 of the 198 events were executed in accordance with the instructions of Gene Sharp.”[41]

The AEI receives funding for the publication and translations of their revolutionary manuals; especially Sharp’s seminal From Dictatorship to Democracy,[42] from Soros’ omnipresent Open Society Institute. Sharp writes:

The Albert Einstein Institution (then in Cambridge, and later in Boston, Massachusetts, USA) solicited funds from the Open Society Institute that made possible the translation and publication of From Dictatorship to Democracy into four of the ethnic languages of Burma: Mon, Karen, Jing Paw, and Chin.

Translations of this publication in print or on a web site include the following languages: Khmer (Cambodia), Farsi (Iran), Mandarin (China), Russian, Vietnamese, Amharic (Ethiopia), Spanish, Belarusian, Dhivehi (Maldives), Nepali, Tibetan, Tigrinia (Eritrea), Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Arabic, Indonesian, and Azeri (Azerbaijan). Several others are in preparation. [43]

“We Are All Ahmadinejads Now!”

President Ahmadinejad has been one of the few statesmen in the world to stand up to both Zionism and plutocracy. His blacklisting of a host of nefarious subversives shows great insight into the workings of the globalist web of subversion. Iran remains a roadblock in the culmination of the new world disorder. To coin a catchy slogan for the current times: “We Are All Ahmadinejads Now!”

Notes

[1] Tina Rosenberg, “What Egypt Learned from the Students who Overthrew Milosovec,” Foreign Policy, (not to be confused with the venerable Foreign Policy Journal) February 16, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...=yes&page=full
[2] The first “Green Revolution,” prompted by a sour-grapes loss by the oppositionists in the 2009 elections, was abortive.
[3] K R Bolton, “Tunisian Revolt: Another NED/Soros Jackup?,” Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...osned-jack-up/
[4] K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...umult-in-egypt

[5] Project for a New American Century, “Toward a Comprehensive Strategy
Project for the New American Century,” September 20, 2001.
[6] Project for a New American Century, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and resources for a New Century,” September 2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
[7] Project for a New American Century, ibid., p. 2.
[8] US Africa Command, “FAQ,” http://www.africom.mil/AfricomFAQs.asp
[9] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa Al-Omrani, Jan./Feb. 2011, “Sudan Set to Split, Despite Egyptian moves,” The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs: http://www.washington-report.org/com...an-moves-.html
[10] Keith Harmon Snow, “Africom’s Covert War in Sudan,” Dissident Voice, March 6, 2009, http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/03/af...-war-in-sudan/
[11] Snow errs here. “Ultra-nationalist capitalist” is a misnomer.” In former centuries the nation-sates served capitalism, as did the age of empires. These eras have gone, and the concepts of both empire and nation-state are inimical to the globalization process of capitalism. For those of a Leftist-bent, Marx wrote of this current globalization process of capitalism in The Communist Manifesto.
[12] Yasmine Saleh, “Rewrite Egyptian Constitution form Scratch, say critics,” Reuters, February 16, 21011, http://af.reuters.com/article/topNew...71F0N620110216
[13] Arabic Network for Human Rights, http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/net2004/thank.shtml
[14] National Endowment for Democracy, “Egypt,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annu...-of-2005-gra-2
[15] It seems that the “tyrant” Mubarak was altogether too tolerant of these nests of vipers.
[16] Ernesto Londoo, “Egypt Starts Overhauling Constitution,” Washington Post, February 17, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021606943.html
[17]Maura Connelly, Political Minister Counselor, US Embassy, London, “Iran: Democracy Small Grants Proposals Recommended for Funding,” February 15, 2011. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/04/08LONDON1163.html
[18] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Radio Fardo Fast Facts,” http://www.rferl.org/info/Iran/186.html
[19] Daniel Johnson and Jack Battersby, Palantinate: The Official University Student Newspaper, February 8 2011, http://www.palatinate.org.uk/?p=10679
[20] Ibid.
[21] International Republican Institute, “Remarks at the National Endowment for Democracy Conference One Year Later: Prospects for a Democratic Transition in Iran U.S. Senator John McCain,” IRI Chairman, June 10, 2010, http://www.iri.org/news-events-press...green-movement
[22] Ken Dilanian, “US grants support to Iranian dissidents,” USA Today, June 28, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...an-money_N.htm
[23] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...bversion/all/1
[24] National Endowment for Democracy, “Iran,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annu...-of-2005-gra-3
[25] National Endowment for Democracy, “Iran,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annu...08-grants/iran
[26] Digital Youth of Central Asia, “Going Digital In Central Asia,” December 7, 2010, http://blog.soros.org/2010/12/going-...-central-asia/
[27] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” op. cit.
[28] K R Bolton, ibid.
[29] K R Bolton, ibid. National Democratic Institute’s program in Iran is centered on the “Supporting Democratic Initiatives” project to provide resources for Iranian oppositionists.
[30] K R Bolton, ibid.
[31] K R Bolton, ibid.
[32] K R Bolton, ibid.
[33] K R Bolton, ibid.
[34] Laura Rozen, “Blacklist: Who’s on Iran Intel Ministry’s List?,” Politico, January 5, 2010, http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurar...rys_list_.html
[35] Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, “About the Foundation,” http://www.iranrights.org/english/foundation.php
[36] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” op. cit.
[37] Foundation for Democracy in Iran, http://www.iran.org/about.htm
[38] Tina Rosenberg, op. cit..
[39] CANVAS, “Co-operation and Partnerships,” http://www.canvasopedia.org/canvas-c...rtnerships.php
[40] Tina Rosenberg, Foreign Policy, (not FPJ)op. cit.
[41] Scott Peterson, “Iran protesters: the Harvard professor behind their tactics,” Christian Science Monitor, December 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...-their-tactics
[42] Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, (AEI, 1993, 1994, etc). The book was originally written as a manual for the abortive “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar. G Sharp, “A Short History of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” http://www.aeinstein.org/organizatio...TD_history.pdf
[43] G Sharp, ibid.

[aaron]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

That was a long essay filled with big words. I really do not understand it, or its point. Something about feminism, family, society, and revolution from within...

Reggie, this stuff may be "obvious" to you. I just do not get it. Are you saying that women's rights (are there still "radical feminists" working now), tolerance, scientific progress, and the break up traditional family structures were all planned to destroy America from within? Cuz, a lot of these terrible values were much further developed in other countries before the U.S.

To what end?

I have no doubt that a group of intellectuals who can write well can influence the course of history. Is that the point?

[mesyn191]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

reggie if you're seriously interested in getting people to at least listen to you much less agree with you you're going to have to try to answer their questions properly.

c1ue asked you some very good and simple ones for instance:

Notice also you've still not answered the question: if Soros and what not are in fact behind the (failed) color revolutions - which can be completely understood as ways to engender governments in ex-Soviet Union nations which can be used to benefit said rentiers - how exactly does a popular movement specifically being against Wall Street rentiers be beneficial?
...
Which returns us to the original question: you point up this and that, but you have yet to actually show a definitive link between OWS and any of the conspiratorial movements in question.

Until you answer stuff like this adequately you can c/p all the anti Marxist conspiracy articles you want. No one is going to take you seriously since it appears, irregardless of your intent, that you're not making any sense at all and are being lazy to boot.

[*T*]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Another thread derailed. Reggie, why not start your own thread on this topic? The rest of you, please do not feed the trolls.

[reggie]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

reggie if you're seriously interested in getting people to at least listen to you much less agree with you you're going to have to try to answer their questions properly.

c1ue asked you some very good and simple ones for instance:


Until you answer stuff like this adequately you can c/p all the anti Marxist conspiracy articles you want. No one is going to take you seriously since it appears, irregardless of your intent, that you're not making any sense at all and are being lazy to boot.

I answered Clue before he even asked the question, the motivation is societal breakdown in preparation for system change.

Further, Soros' OSI is one of OPTOR's funders.

The website "SourceWatch" believes the following groups finance/support Optor:

Funding Sources and Training (alpha order)

Freedom House (Mowat, op. cit.)
International Republican Institute (IRI) (Mowat, op. cit.)
National Endowment for Democracy
Open Society Institute
USAID – Financed T-shirts, stickers, spray-paint (Ackerman, quoted in Mowat, op. cit.)
United States Institute of Peace (Dobbs, op. cit.)

(Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Otpor )[/quote]

Moreover, has anyone bothered to research the actual goals of Soros' Open Society? Is anyone familiar with Karl Popper's work, which is what supposedly motivated Soros as a young student?

If you want to understand Soros' goals and motivations, perhaps you should research the work that has built his foundation for thinking and perspective and stop looking to me for all the answers. Who, exactly, is the lazy ones in this scenario?

Finally, Clue's question demonstrates a lack of understanding of Soros, as the protesters are actually performing a function that is totally consistent with Soros' long term goals and the goals of his view on the Open Society.

Another thread derailed. Reggie, why not start your own thread on this topic? The rest of you, please do not feed the trolls.

I see little to no understanding of the science behind the system here, all discussion is focused on the outputs of the system. My attempts to discuss the science, as presented by academics, is ridiculed as "big words", "derailment" and being a "troll".

Tell me, how is it that you can trust the authorized system messages when it appears you have no understanding of the science that drives these outputs, or the goals of this science?

That was a long essay filled with big words. I really do not understand it, or its point. Something about feminism, family, society, and revolution from within...

Reggie, this stuff may be "obvious" to you. I just do not get it. Are you saying that women's rights (are there still "radical feminists" working now), tolerance, scientific progress, and the break up traditional family structures were all planned to destroy America from within? Cuz, a lot of these terrible values were much further developed in other countries before the U.S.

To what end?

I have no doubt that a group of intellectuals who can write well can influence the course of history. Is that the point?

Again, the ENDS are system change via system failure.

The protestors are nothing more than another object in the Cybernetics feedback model being run at RAND and at the DIA, You're going to have to make some attempt to understand systems thinking if you're going to be able to understand system objects and their behavior in today's current society model.

Otherwise, you're going to remain a subject to confusing sytem outputs.