-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 99-09-18 10:35:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>l. Too late for rational solution, yes. What I am concerned about is a
>bunch of irrational hotheads fomented by "agents provocateurs" kicking off a
>self defeating fight against the State. Let events unfold naturally.
It's a sad fact indeed that you, being as astute as you are, must agree with
me ....
But yes, what most of us are concerned about here on CTRL is that there at
least *appears* to be some effort by the government, through its "agents
provocateur," to foment random acts of mass violence IN ADVANCE of the more
rationally-directed equivalent occurring, in order to justify exactly the
kind of repressive government measures that would be needed if the latter
were to manifest -- with the support of a frightened or angry public, which
would NOT be the case should the latter occur.
I can't decide whether such incidents as the Columbine mass-murder or the by
now stereotypical "falling down" of unbalanced losers like Buford Furrow are
products of a government program to create "mind controlled" assassins
--time-bomb "agents in place"-- or just natural "random" expressions of
free-floating collective rage in a populace starting to reach the breaking
point thanks to the cumulative weight of all our culture's social and
economic injustices, in which the government plays a major role.
In other words, there's no telling whether such incidents are DIRECTLY or,
through a pile-up of unfortunate social circumstances resulting in individual
psychotic breakdowns, only INDIRECTLY connected with government strategy
common in a pre-revolutionary period. But the government is certainly
responding as if they WERE, if only in how the opportunity is seized in
calculated fashion to institute such programs as gun control, pre-emptive
"profiling" of those who MIGHT revolt (for less psychotic reasons), and mass
surveillance of the citizenry beyond what is justifiably needed in a free
society.
That impression is even stronger when we note how the mechanisms for
repression were already being put in place a decade ago, under the presidency
of George Bush, back when such acts of random mass violence were
statistically rare -- only continuing the "contingency plans" drawn up during
the Nixon era, and later the Reagan era, for
"martial law" to control domestic resistance to the State's imperialistic
foreign policy
and muzzle a citizenry increasingly recognizing and distrusting its Nazi-like
behavior.
The government today is behaving exactly as J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon
did
when faced with rational dissent or legitimate protest -- it's promoting a
"demonology"
(the "Communist menace" back then, the threat of "foreign and domestic
terrorists" nowadays) to justify its own authoritarianism and absolutism,
altogether self-servingly.
If domestic covert ops (MK-Ultra, "Operation Chaos," etc) and "agents
provocateurs" were standard operating procedure back then, why should we
think they aren't NOW,
under roughly analogous circumstances? You're correct, in my opinion, about
Waco (and the World Trade Center and Murrah Building bombings) being
"Reichstag fires."
The government is acting systematically as if preparing to head off a
REVOLUTION,
NOT "terrorism" (foreign or domestic) and psychotic breaks in "lone nuts"
with guns.
Of course, the government is no doubt also trying to "provoke" what might
APPEAR to be a "revolution," as a preferred alternative to the REAL thing,
and government agents (Ollie North and Gordon Liddy come to mind, and perhaps
"militia" types like Bo Gritz)
have already infiltrated the milieu from which the public has been led to
believe a real "revolt" MAY come, hoping to steer such a "revolt" safely back
under fascist control.
BTW, when in history has a ruling oligarchy ever "let events unfold
naturally"? LOL
>2. the situation is now the individual vs the State and is being carried by
events
>We are essentially observers.to the tide of future history.
The best we can hope for, IMHO, is that an influential segment of the general
public will be able to RECOGNIZE what's going on and at least not be
"hoodwinked" by the State..
>3. However some recent revolutions have been very much a small group
>sparking [for] the masses. Many years ago I was digging around in the
Hoover
>Institution Tower and found a bundle of papers relating to the Sun Yat Sen
>revolution in China (1912) All the ingredients for a fomented revolution:
>names of Wall Street bankers, agreements for concessions, Chinese request for
>funds, even lists of arms shipped, expenditures neatly itemized,above all the
>names of people involved Chinese and American These were not intellectuals
>they were entrepreneurs who wanted mineral and railroad concessions. the
>papers show a business arrangement rather than anything else. .
>
>Second, the Bolshevik Revolution was a small group Lenin, Trostsky with
maybe
>10,000 followers....and with outside funds.. Same with Hitler, outside help.
> In fact Putzi Haenfstengl, Roosevelt's college friend, was right at the
>core of the Nazi movement.
Yup. I hope I made it clear earlier that the foundation for revolution
--"revolution" in its initial stages-- is non-rational and characterized by
mass-eruptions of the popular will in outrage against unjust
sociopolitical-economic circumstances it generally still can't critique in
abstract or ideological terms, and that it becomes a Revolution (no quotes)
only somewhat later, when a minority of ideologues begin to give rational
form to the inchoate sentiments of the masses and to direct their rage toward
pragmatic goals.
True "revolutionaries" are a minority who only emerge in mid-game to exploit,
or at least capitalize on, the opportunities for radical change-- whether for
good or ill-- now made available by social chaos and violent popular
opposition to the existing structure of the State and the authority of any
member of the existing ruling class. As you point out, it's common for
members of the "revolutionary" class to have strong foreign ties, including
funding from foreign sources, because a revolution creates a change in the
international "balance of power" and foreign governments, whether friend or
foe, thus have a personal
interest in the utimate outcome [in contrast to the negative example you
offer in the case of the Soviet revolution, our Founding Fathers received
vitally essential aid from France, Holland, and even from dissident members
of the British aristocracy, without whose assistance the American Revolution
might not have succeeded] -- and because "revolutionaries" of all stripes,
Left or Right, tend to be driven by ideological principles which are more
abstract and "universal" than circumscribed by purely local conditions and
therefore support those ideals in foreign countries every bit as much as in
their own
(like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in France, to offer another "flip
side" example).
That notwihstanding, it is of course very necessary to be aware of any input
into the local equation by "outside agitators" from ENEMY States who purely
opportunistically
support radical changes here at home, for the WRONG reasons, thus creating an
ironic situation where those changes may be inherently good and just in
themselves yet they are DISCREDITED by the covert or overt support of
meddlers from a different context.
That was a common circumstance in the '50s and '60s with much of the Left.
What, absent Communist infiltration, might have been recognized as a natural
evolution of our native "progressive" and "populist" political movements,
present from the beginning of American history long before Marx or Lenin, had
its effectiveness and popular support seriously undercut by the
anything-but-beneficial support of Communist sympathizers.
That an enemy State acts, co-optively, in support of certain ideals does not
ipso facto mean that those ideals are not valid or sincere in themselves,
minus "bad company."
>4. There has to be a mass movement for revolution but up to now it has been
>influenced rather than controled by "leaders" and by outside influences,
>usually funding.
>Today I suggest the mass participatory Internet has become a leader along
>with a more (semi-) "educated" audience. This still leaves intellectual
>leaders essentially sitting on the sidelines as hypnotized observers..
Hence my deep concern that the Internet will be castrated and placed under
tighter control by the government, for that very reason.
>This revolution in some ways is more like the 1933 Nazi revolution ( and I
>wonder about Waco and similarity to the Reichstag fire)... A docile general
>population, outside funding ( cocaine billions), jackbooted thugs. On the
>other side the Internet and a somewhat more alert educated citizenry. What
>are the techies in Silicon Valley going to do? These are quite different
>people to the 1933 German burgers. It may not pan out the same way.as it
>has before One hacker may be more significant than an M ll tank. This is
>more of a "mind revolution" than physical revolution.
I fear you are overly optimistic about the character of most "Silicon Valley"
types, who seem to me to be just "techno-yuppies," with all the deficiencies
in character of the stereotypical yuppie --the classic "petit bourgeois" in
more modern guise-- and thus every bit as bad as ambitious upwardly-mobile
(until derailed by the Great Depression)
types among the German middle class just prior to Hitler's "rescuing" rise to
power.
Their materialism and antisocial self-interest is certainly identical, and
then as now, "It's the ECONOMY, stupid" -- it's their overweening concern
with financial security AT ANY PRICE that worries me. A surprising number of
these Silicon Valley types are Ayn Rand devotees and Newt Gingrich
techno-REPUBLICANS -- what used to be called "technocrats," rather
authoritarian in their outlook instead of genuinely"libertarian."
Geez, look at how Bill Gates (as vs Steve Jobs) behaves in a CORPORATE
context!
As for "hackers," all the hackers I've bumped into are irresponsible, quite
juvenile petty anarchists, more given to electronic vandalism (including
e-graffiti) than to any rational "revolutionary" conduct. I'm not very
hopeful of THEIR participation except as a wild card that's temperamentally a
joker in the deck, not an ace. Besides which, if you've noticed, the
government has already foreseen the role that COULD be played by the
"hackers" and now categorizes "hackers" as "domestic CYBER-terrorists"
subject to surveillance, targeting them for the harshest penalties (for
"electronic sedition") along with those whose sabotage is more grossly
physical/mechanical, like bomb throwing.
The State tends to stay one step ahead of us, so it's no time to be overly
optimistic.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
