-Caveat Lector-
Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite -- by Daniel Brandt
Opportunity is rapidly vanishing, poorly masked by an institutionalized preference for
diversity. Leftist academics in ivory towers are hooked on designer victimology but
fail to notice the real victims -- the entire next generation. Meanwhile the rich get
richer. Have a nice New World Order. _____
Anyone who follows today's academic debates on multiculturalism, and by happenstance
is also familiar with the power-structure research that engaged students in the
sixties and early seventies, is struck by that old truism: the only thing history
teaches us is that no one learns from history. By now it's even embarrassing, perhaps
because of our soundbite culture. Not only must each generation painstakingly relearn,
by trial and error, everything learned by the previous generation, but it's beginning
to appear that we have to relearn ourselves that which we knew a scant twenty years
earlier. The debate over diversity is one example of this.
Researchers in the sixties discovered that the ruling elites of the West mastered the
techniques of multiculturalism at the onset of the Cold War, and employed them time
and again to counter the perceived threat from communism. The Congress for Cultural
Freedom (CCF) was funded first by the CIA and then, after this was exposed in 1967, by
the Ford Foundation. CCF created magazines, published books, and conducted conferences
throughout the world, in an effort to wean intellectuals to democratic liberalism.[1]
The CIA was also busy in Africa. In an article titled "The CIA as an Equal
Opportunity Employer" that first appeared in 1969 in Ramparts and was reprinted in the
Black Panther newspaper and elsewhere, members from the Africa Research Group
presented convincing evidence that "the CIA has promoted black cultural nationalism to
reinforce neo-colonialism in Africa." In their introduction they added that "activists
in the black colony within the United States can easily see the relevance to their own
situation; in many cases the same techniques and occasionally the same individuals are
used to control the political implications of Afro-American culture."[2]
But this is lost history, found today only on dusty library shelves or buried in
obscure databases. None of it is mentioned in the current debate over diversity, not
even in one of the most lucid essays, an opinion piece by David Rieff that appeared in
a recent Harper's.[3] Rieff paints a picture of multiculturalism and shows, in broad
strokes, how multiculturalism serves capitalism. To appreciate the significance of
multiculturalism we must, as Rieff does, look at the academic arguments from someplace
in the real world, or at least from off campus. But we must also be aware of our own
historical legacy: psychological warfare and the secret state, the mass media and the
culture of spectacle, the role of foundations, and above all, the interests and
techniques of the elite globalists who won the Cold War.
From the time that this war began in 1947, the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller
Foundations, in cooperation with the CIA, began funding programs at major U.S.
universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Columbia. They began with an emphasis on
Russian studies, but by the mid-1960s these three foundations and the CIA had a
near-monopoly on all international studies in the U.S.[4] This phenomenon, a
big-money, top-down affair born out of strategic considerations, is the precursor of
today's academic multiculturalism.
Some defenders of academic diversity pretend that the elitist shoe is on the other
foot, and note that their critics are funded by certain conservative foundations. Sara
Diamond tracks the Olin Foundation and Smith-Richardson money behind Dinesh D'Souza
and the National Association of Scholars (NAS), two of the more vocal critics of
multiculturalism.[5] Diamond points out that the Smith-Richardson Foundation has its
own CIA connections, even though they pale in significance alongside the Carnegie -
Ford - Rockefeller nexus. But Diamond's major error is in framing her arguments in
terms of right and left. This allows the real dynamics to escape her field of vision.
The ruling elite that finds diversity useful is an elite operating at a level which
transcends right and left. While there is an ideological right that is battling the
left, and while they do enjoy funding from other conservatives, these folks are not
the problem because they do not have substantial power. Nothing shows this better than
the fact that this ideological right has always been as concerned as the left over the
real source of power, the elite globalists. This began with the Reece Committee on the
role of foundations in 1954, continued through the 1960s with the John Birch Society's
attacks on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and later on the Trilateral
Commission, and continues today with Pat Robertson,[6] Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot,
Spotlight, and others. It's not a right-left problem, but rather a top-bottom
problem.[7]
Secondly, whatever the funding enjoyed by D'Souza and NAS, one must recognize that
the ideological right has long been motivated by a Constitutionally-based,
protectionist patriotism that hates big government. Too often the patriotic component
has devolved into what can only be described as racism and imperialism. But in 1993
they are once again isolationist, at a time when louder mainstream voices want to
assume the role of the world's policeman. And today the populist, ideological right
(as opposed to the corporate, Republican, elitist right found on the CFR roster) is
also opposed to NAFTA, every bit as firmly as the trade-union Democrats. The
ideological right, in other words, takes ideas seriously -- a characteristic of those
who lack power. It's just possible that diversity for its own sake deserves to be
criticized because it replaces the search for truth with a situationist relativism
based on personal experience. This too is a consideration that defies simplistic
left-right categories.
For those who feel that the forces behind the debate are instructive, it's worthwhile
noting that the Ford Foundation began supporting feminist groups and women's studies
programs in the early 1970s. Just ten years earlier they were busy training Indonesian
elites (using Berkeley professors as instructors) to take over from Sukarno,[8] which
occurred soon after a CIA-sponsored coup in 1965 that led to the slaughter of hundreds
of thousands. Did the folks at Ford Foundation have a bleeding change of heart, or are
they continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter.
David R. Hunter, considered the "godfather of progressive philanthropy" by hip heirs
such as George Pillsbury,[9] began his new career co-opting the next generation after
spending four years at the Ford Foundation.[10] The ruling elite knows exactly what
it's doing, and they are remarkably consistent.
When Ramparts blew the whistle on the CIA's domestic cultural activities in 1967,
President Johnson appointed a committee consisting of elitists Nicholas Katzenbach
(Rhodes scholar and former Ford Foundation fellow), OSS old-boy John Gardner (Carnegie
Corporation president, 1955-1965), and CIA director Richard Helms to study the
problem. The Katzenbach Committee reported that they expected private foundations,
which had grown from 2,200 in 1955 to 18,000 in 1967, to take over the CIA's funding
of international organizations, and recommended a "public-private mechanism" to give
grants openly. Sixteen years later a Democratic Congress adopted this recommendation
by establishing the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). By now it requires a leap
of good faith to draw distinctions among complicated overlapping networks of CIA
funding, NED funding, and funding by foundations such as Carnegie, Ford, and
Rockefeller. The same people are behind all three, and they seem to be getting richer
every day. They promote the two-party system because it keeps the rest of us off track.
Consider the issue of women in the workplace. Everyone agrees that increased
opportunities for women are wonderful, but what effect has this had on family income?
Here's the sobering answer, from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, no less:
The average weekly take home pay of a worker who entered the workforce in 1989 is
$5.68 less today than thirty years ago. This is also reflected in hourly wages.
Compared to 1959, there has been a slight increase, 60 cents an hour. But hourly
wages are down from their peak in 1973. The 1950s were our boom time. In that one
decade hourly wages grew by 83 cents. It took the following three decades to add a
mere 60 cents. Families made do by doubling up in the workforce. Between 1955 and
1989 female participation in the work force rose from 35.7 percent to 57.4 percent.
Even so, family income stayed flat. Median family income in 1973 was $32,109. Half a
generation later in 1988 it was, in constant 1988 dollars, $32,191, a gain of $82. We
also started the 1980s as the largest creditor nation in history. We are now the
largest debtor.... As a debtor nation, we must expect that the people we owe money to
will be better off than we are.[11]
More American women are working just to keep the family going, while more Japanese
women can afford to stay home and are choosing to do so. The flip side of increased
opportunities for American women is that they can no longer choose to stay out of the
labor force. As David Rieff asks, "If multiculturalism is what its proponents claim it
is, why has its moment seen the richest one percent of Americans grow richer and the
deunionization of the American workplace? There is something wrong with this
picture."[12]
Consider, too, the situation of African-Americans. As soon as the ghettos erupted in
the mid-1960s, Johnson's war on poverty began pouring funds on the flames. This was
followed with Nixon's "black capitalism," and by the early 1970s affirmative action
was institutionalized by edict from above in both the public sector and in major
private corporations that held government contracts. But twenty years later only the
politicians, pundits, and movie stars pretend that any of this is significant; it's
the Jesse Jacksons and black personalities on television who justify what they've got
by emphasizing how far we've come thanks to the civil rights struggle. Meanwhile the
young in the ghettos, and increasingly even on campuses, know that these front-office
PR slots were filled long ago. It's not a problem of inequality; for the next
generation there's already a rough equality in anticipated misery. The big problem is
that opportunities are vanishing altogether, without regard to race, gender, or sexual
orientation.
What's left of the left has yet to even acknowledge this, which makes the proponents
of diversity seem irrelevant and even a bit suspicious. It's as if the
multiculturalists are protesting too much. Trapped by the cognitive dissonance
engendered by hard evidence and common sense, their words lash out reactively in an
effort to justify themselves. What else can they do? As David Rieff notes, their
relationship to the real world is peripheral:
For all their writings on power, hegemony, and oppression, the campus
multiculturalists seem indifferent to the question of where they fit into the
material scheme of things. Perhaps it's tenure, with its way of shielding the senior
staff from the rigors of someone else's bottom-line thinking. Working for an
institution in which neither pay nor promotion is connected to performance, job
security is guaranteed (after tenure is attained), and pension arrangements are
probably the finest in any industry in the country -- no wonder a poststructuralist
can easily believe that words are deeds. She or he can afford to.[13]
While self-justification may motivate tenured multiculturalists, the same politics
also work well for those who are trying to get there. As any humanities grad student
soon discovers, academia is about specialization, not about teaching. You need a
gimmick. The choreography of the canon limits the varieties of mental gymnastics
during any given academic period (about ten years), and anyone out of sync is destined
for unemployment. By insisting on diversity as a challenge to the canon, new slots are
forced open for tenure-track spin doctors. Pressure from the administration for
departmental affirmative action dovetails nicely with the fact that only victims can
preach this new canon; presto, tenure at last! Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who resigned as
chair of Emory's women's studies program because of complaints she wasn't sufficiently
radical, admits as much:
In real terms, however, the battle over multiculturalism is a battle over scarce
resources and shrinking opportunities. To recognize this much does not deny the
related battle over national identity, but does caution us to take the more extreme
pronouncements pro and con with a grain of salt.[14]
Multiculturalism can be an ideology that is used to bludgeon one's way into tenure,
because affirmative action alone is insufficient. The essence of affirmative action
becomes clear after leaving grad school and spending fifteen years working for small
companies as well as several large corporations. Affirmative action (the PR phrase is
"equal opportunity" and the accurate phrase is "preferential treatment") is a facade,
affecting only the low-level and public-interface positions in large corporations.
After instructing their human resource departments along federal guidelines, upper
management stays the same, secure in the knowledge that the low-level hires will
statistically offset the white males behind their closed office doors. Feminists call
this the "glass ceiling."
For young white males without exceptional advantages, it's closer to a glass floor.
Math doesn't play language games: if you quota something in you also quota something
out. Someone must pay for the sins of the elite. When the diversity-mongers target
white males, at best they are almost half correct -- many (not all) older white males
have enjoyed advantages. But then when they make someone pay, they are all wrong: it's
always the young and innocent who bear the brunt of their policies. It would make as
much sense for U.S. institutions to impose sanctions on young women today, simply
because historically they have enjoyed exemption from the military draft.
The fact that affirmative action appeared so rapidly over twenty years ago, without
opposition from entrenched interests, should have provided a clue. It may have been
designed to defuse civil unrest, but this remedy was forced from above, not from
below.. In a poll commissioned by Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, which plans to
organize minorities in support of traditional family values, only 36.6 percent of
Hispanics, 37.6 percent of blacks, and 10 percent of whites agreed with the statement
that "African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities should received special
preference in hiring to make up for past inequalities."[15] The agenda of victimology,
defined by George Will as "the proliferation of groups nursing grievances and
demanding entitlements,"[16] is not an agenda shared widely off campus.
It appears that those who are most vocal in support of affirmative action are those,
reasonably enough, who are most dependent on it to maintain their advantage. The
ruling elite are experts at manipulating their own interests; they know how to divide
and conquer, which is why they continue to rule. As inequality becomes increasingly
obvious, those who are less equal begin to see society in terms of "us" and "them.."
The dominant culture shades this definition by using the mass media to emphasize our
differences at every opportunity. Conventional wisdom becomes articulated within
narrow parameters, which is another way of saying that the questions offered for
public debate are rigged.
The objective is to define "us" and "them" in ways that do not threaten the
established order. Today everyone can see that there is more Balkanization on campus,
and more racism in society, than there was when affirmative action began over twenty
years ago. And for twenty years now one can hardly get through the day without being
reminded that race is something that matters, from TV sitcoms all the way down to
common application forms (it would have been unthinkable to ask about one's race on an
application form in the 1960s). We are not fighting the system anymore, we're fighting
each other.
Multiculturalism fails to challenge the underlying assumption of all affirmative
action rationales, namely that opportunities are scarce and there's not enough for
everyone. There is much evidence to substantiate this, particularly as the U.S. tries
to remain competitive in a new global economy. Perhaps we should take the global
perspective seriously and hunker down for hard times. It's just poor business sense to
build a factory in the U.S. if you can build it in Mexico (2000 have moved already).
In 1983 the cost of an hour's labor time here was $12.26. The hourly savings for using
foreign labor that year amounted to $10.81 in Mexico, $10.09 in Singapore, $6.06 in
Japan, and $10.97 in Korea.[17]
Perhaps America's only potential advantage is the technical lead we enjoy in certain
areas. If we can play this card well, it might partially compensate for a declining
industrial base. Here, too, affirmative action has it all backwards. A huge pool of
talent -- the ones, incidentally, who have most of the skills needed in a society that
wants to emphasize technical innovation, merit, and quality -- are underemployed and
demoralized by affirmative action policies.
Recent literacy tests by the Education Department, the most comprehensive in two
decades, show that American adults aged 21 to 25 scored significantly lower than eight
years ago, and that about 40 million American adults of all ages have difficulty
reading a simple sentence. Men outscored women in document and quantitative literacy,
and white adults scored significantly higher than any of the other nine racial and
ethnic groups surveyed.[18] Over half of all minorities admitted to college under
affirmative action programs drop out before graduating; 30 percent before the end of
their freshman year.[19] America does not have the time or resources to bring everyone
up to the same level, so instead it appears to be "dumbing down" our culture by
denying opportunities and challenges to our most capable young people. This attempt at
social leveling is a poor second choice.
None of these dire trends are of any concern to the ruling elites who have the power
to address them. They are citizens of the world, and no one -- now not even the Soviet
bloc -- stands in their way. They have no need for borders; free trade is what they
want and what they will eventually get. Many on Wall Street prefer unrestricted
immigration, which would drive down wages and fold up our few remaining unions. For
ruling elites, private security provides insulation and "social decay" is just an
irrelevant phrase. A massive amount of money, some $1 trillion, is traded every day on
currency exchanges around the world. On those rare occasions when money laundering is
discovered, the tax man gets too greedy, or regulators become pesky, one nation can be
played off against another. And there is disturbing evidence that even the CIA
operates at the level of offshore banking and drug-running, presumably after they
determine that their already-bloated budgets, picked from our pockets, simply don't
meet their needs.
The owners of corporate America have the resources to move offshore or south of the
border, while the rest of us are here for the duration. If we were all tightening our
belts together, there might be some basis for programs designed to redistribute
opportunities. But the rich are getting richer at the same time that they institute
policies such as affirmative action and NAFTA. It doesn't pass the smell test. The
campus left speaks of equality, and then forgets about justice by ignoring economic
and class distinctions. This failure is so fundamental that multiculturalists should
no longer be considered "leftists." As long as they claim this description, some of us
-- those who still feel that elites ought to be accountable -- are beginning to feel
more comfortable as "populists."
Back on campus, the debate rages over the quality of politically-correct (PC) courses
and the propriety of speech codes designed to penalize so-called "hate" speech.
Multiculturalism is pervasive throughout the humanities, but English and art classes
seem to attract most of the PC professors. At the University of Maryland, Josephine
Withers taught "Contemporary Issues in Feminist Art" in 1993. Nine of her students, in
an effort to propagate the awareness of rape as a feminist issue, tacked up hundreds
of fliers bearing the heading "Notice: These Men Are Potential Rapists." The names
underneath were chosen arbitrarily from the student directory. Some of those named
were not amused. This is not "hate speech," because in this case the perpetrators --
the nine women -- are victims of a "male-identified" culture, and are simply
expressing sensitivity to their own oppression.[20]
For an example of actionable hate speech, we go to the University of Pennsylvania.
The theft of 14,000 copies of the student newspaper by black students unhappy with a
white columnist went unpunished at Penn. But a white male freshman was hauled before
the school's judicial board after yelling "water buffalo" at a group of black sorority
sisters creating a disturbance under his dormitory window.[21]
Some of the steam has gone out of campus speech codes because of recent court
decisions that have declared them unconstitutional. But political correctness and
multiculturalism is still rampant inside some classrooms. Scholars from NAS have
expressed concern over standards of scholarship and rising campus tensions.[22]
Thoughtful progressives like Barbara Epstein worry that "a politics that is organized
around defending identities ... forces people's experience into categories that are
too narrow."[23] Todd Gitlin, a former 1960s student leader who now teaches at
Berkeley, echoes similar sentiments:
The academic left has degenerated into a loose aggregation of margins -- often
cannibalistic, romancing the varieties of otherness, speaking in tongues. In this new
interest-group pluralism, the shopping center of identity politics makes a fetish of
the virtues of the minority, which, in the end, is not only intellectually
stultifying but also politically suicidal.... Authentic liberals have good reason to
worry that the elevation of 'difference' to a first principle is undermining
everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole.[24]
Even Mother Jones magazine is having second thoughts. Karen Lehrman, a thirtyish
conservative who visited 20 women's studies classes at Berkeley, Iowa, Smith, and
Dartmouth, delivered a withering critique of course content in a recent issue.[25] The
same Mother Jones issue also tantalizes with a teaser for future articles: "Is Hillary
our friend?" and "Did someone get to Bill?" At this rate the magazine may eventually
(sometime after the next election, naturally) figure out who the Clintons really
represent. Or at least discover that Donna Shalala, FOH (friend of Hillary) and
chancellor of the University of Wisconsin (before Hillary appointed her HHS
secretary), is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the super-elitist
Trilateral Commission (as is Hillary's husband). Shalala has called for "a basic
transformation of American higher education in the name of multiculturalism and
diversity."[26]
The critics of course content object to some of the sensitivity training programs and
techniques that are in vogue on the multicultural campus. Many universities now
require PC sensitivity exposure of some sort for incoming freshmen. The NAS worries
that such programs are making the situation on campus worse, not better:
'Sensitivity training' programs designed to cultivate 'correct thought' about
complicated normative, social, and political issues do not teach tolerance but impose
orthodoxy. And when these programs favor manipulative psychological techniques over
honest discussion, they also undermine the intellectual purposes of higher education
and anger those subjected to them. If entire programs of study or required courses
relentlessly pursue issues of 'race, gender, and class' in preference to all other
approaches to assessing the human condition, one can expect the increasing division
of the campus along similar lines.[27]
Sensitivity training has its roots in the late 1960s, when it became a business
management fad much the way that "total quality" has been the fad over the past few
years. An undergraduate at the time, at least in California, could usually find a
sensitivity course in the business school. These revolved around personal rather than
political sensitivity. A similar experience might be found in the psychology
department, where one "humanist" might have held out against the behaviorists. In
sociology, a race relations class might sponsor trips to the ghetto, where poverty
program militants would harangue and titillate white sorority sisters by using foul
language.
Ethical questions should be raised when such techniques are applied with a political
agenda. In the late 1960s in California, a group with liberal Protestant connections
calling itself the "Urban Plunge" organized sensitivity immersions for white liberals
from the suburbs. After several days or more of intensive ghetto exposure organized by
charismatic Plunge staffers, interspersed with group "attack therapy" sessions, many
participants were duly impressed. I attended two or three "Plunges" in 1967-1968 in
Los Angeles and San Francisco. In early 1970, when I believed in pacifism and was
appealing a conviction for draft resistance, the Los Angeles "Plunge" invited me to
speak to the weekend participants. I arrived at the scheduled time and discovered that
new techniques were being used: everyone had been deprived of sleep and food for two
days in an effort to sensitize them to the Third World. Tempers were understandably
short. As I walked in, fists were flying between a staffer and participant. Disgusted
with the whole scene, I immediately walked back out.
In 1968, despite all the mistakes and stupidity of that era, victimology as
self-justification was not yet in vogue. Poverty program militants acted more like
kings on their own turf than like victims; they even seemed to enjoy themselves. Women
didn't start complaining until a year or two later. Hispanics were only recently
recognized on a par with blacks, even in the huge barrios of Los Angeles. Draft
resisters risked prison in an effort to stop the machine, and many who served in
Vietnam felt an obligation to society and risked everything. In this social stew there
were many demands for justice but few self-serving claims to entitlements. Today,
however, Lehrman discovers that victimology is all the rage:
Terms like sexism, racism, and homophobia have bloated beyond all recognition, and
the more politicized the campus, the more frequently they're thrown around....
[T]hose with the most oppressed identities are the most respected..... The irony is
not only that these students (who, at the schools I visited at least, were
overwhelmingly white and upper-middle class) probably have not come into contact with
much oppression, but that they are the first generation of women who have grown up
with so many options open to them.[28]
Another sore point for the critics is the moral relativism of today's
multiculturalists, particularly in the humanities. Lehrman complains that their
"post-structuralism" implies that "all texts are arbitrary, all knowledge is biased,
all standards are illegitimate, all morality is subjective." When it comes to their
own Western-culture feminism, however, the relativism is conveniently forgotten.[29]
Mortimer J. Adler feels that those who assert subjectivism have dug themselves into a
philosophical hole:
For such multiculturalists ... what is or is not desirable is, therefore, entirely a
matter of taste (about which there should be no disputing), not a matter of truth
that can be disputed in terms of empirical evidence and reasons. We are left with a
question that should be embarrassing to the multiculturalists, though they are not
likely to feel its pinch. When they proclaim the desirability of the multicultural,
they dispute about matters that should not be disputed. What, then, can possibly be
their grounds of preference? Since in their terms it cannot appeal to any relevant
body of truth, what they demand in the name of multiculturalism must arise from a
wish for power or self-esteem.[30]
Classes on campus that are considered PC tend to be easy credits, where students
grade each other and spend much of their time discussing personal experiences and
writing journals. Indeed, once relativism is embraced, there's not much to learn that
doesn't come from within, so what else can be done? But then add social pressure to
the classroom, so that certain patterns of experience are validated by one's peers
while others are not. If one's classmates represented a cross-section of society the
effect might even out, but in this rigged environment they all end up saying the same
thing. Thus college becomes a narrowing experience rather than a broadening
experience. Normally this isn't supposed to happen until grad school.
But perhaps learning has always occurred more frequently outside of the classroom. In
1968 I noticed from a puff piece in our campus yearbook that a university trustee,
John McCone, was a former CIA director. In the library there was exactly one book to
be found that was critical of the CIA (The Invisible Government by David Wise and
Thomas B. Ross, published in 1964) and it included some material on McCone. Then I
began looking at the other University of Southern California trustees, and discovered
some of the people behind Governor Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
No one ever assigned me readings on power-structure research; the established order
never encourages anyone to research or expose its inner workings. I became interested
on my own, with help from soon-defunct magazines like Ramparts. (Years later a former
postal worker told me that at his post office, the feds collected lists of Ramparts
subscribers.) When it comes to naming and describing the ruling elite, the facts are
inconvenient for those who are nursing careers. Students at Columbia published
impressive research on the trustees at their university in 1968, but not a hint of
this made it into the major media. It was reported as long-haired, pot-smoking draft
dodgers who spontaneously decided to take over the campus for no reason at all. Film
at eleven.
Professors know little about ruling elites because they do know how to recognize a
career-stopper when they see one. The fact that administrators are actively promoting
multiculturalism should have set off alarm bells for class-conscious leftists who
haven't yet deluded themselves about the role of the university. This support by the
administration ought to clearly suggest that multiculturalism is endorsed by the
ruling elite because they find it useful.
Donna Shalala, now secretary of Health and Human Services, once remarked:
The university is institutionally racist. American society is racist and sexist.
Covert racism is just as bad today as overt racism was thirty years ago. In the 1960s
we were frustrated about all this. But now, we are in a position to do something
about it.[31]
She and her CFR and Trilateralist friends must laugh about this in private, knowing
that their policies function like self-fulfilling prophecies. They also know that any
focus on racism and sexism to the exclusion of class analysis amounts to a cover-up of
their own agenda. The 1980s speak for themselves. Ultimately the ruling elites intend
nothing less than the Balkanization of the American middle class. Comparatively
speaking, this class is one of world's few remaining reservoirs of unprotected,
unexploited wealth.
1. Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy: The Congress for Cultural
Freedom and the Struggle for the Mind of Postwar Europe (New York:
Free Press, 1989), 333 pages.
2. Dan Schechter, Michael Ansara, and David Kolodney, "The CIA as an
Equal Opportunity Employer," Ramparts, June 1969, pp. 25-33.
Reprinted with an introduction in Ellen Ray, William Schaap, Karl
van Meter, and Louis Wolf, eds., Dirty Work 2: The CIA in Africa
(Secaucus NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1979), pp. 50-69.
3. David Rieff, "Multiculturalism's Silent Partner: It's the newly
globalized consumer economy, stupid." Harper's, August 1993,
pp. 62-72.
4. Sigmund Diamond, Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of
Universities with the Intelligence Community, 1945-1955 (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992), 371 pages; David Horowitz, "Sinews of
Empire," Ramparts, October 1969, pp. 32-42.
5. Sara Diamond, "The Funding of the NAS." In Patricia Aufderheide, ed.,
Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding (Saint Paul MN:
Graywolf Press, 1992), pp. 89-96. This essay first appeared in
Z Magazine, February 1991.
6. Compare Sigmund Diamond's discussion of the Reece Committee in
Compromised Campus and Pat Robertson's discussion of same in The New
World Order (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991).
7. I'm indebted to Ace Hayes for this sentence.
8. David Ransom, "Ford Country: Building an Elite for Indonesia." In
Steve Weissman, ed., The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid
(Palo Alto CA: Ramparts Press, 1975), pp. 93-116.
9. Kathleen Teltsch, "Adviser Helping the Rich Discover Worthy Causes,"
New York Times, 14 October 1984, p. 50.
10. Who's Who in America, 1984-1985 (Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1984).
11. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Deficit by Default" (14th edition of an
annual series beginning with Fiscal Year 1976), July 31, 1990,
pp. xiv - xvii.
12. Rieff, p. 63.
13. Ibid., p. 66.
14. Pat Aufderheide, ed., Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding
(Saint Paul MN: Graywolf Press, 1992), p. 232.
15. Ralph Z. Hallow, "Christian Coalition to Court Minorities: Blacks,
Hispanics Back Key Stands," Washington Times, 10 September 1993,
p. A5.
16. George F. Will, "Literary Politics." In Aufderheide, ed., p. 24.
17. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics (Washington:
1985), p. 435, Table 132.
18. Carol Innerst, "America's Illiterates Increasing: Survey Disputes
U.S. Self-Image," Washington Times, 9 September 1993, p. A1, A10.
19. C. Vann Woodward, "Freedom and the Universities." In Aufderheide,
ed., p. 32.
20. Janet Naylor, "'Potential Rapists' Flier Stirs UMd. Flap," Washington
Times, 7 May 1993, p. A1, A7.
21. Carol Innerst, "The Hackney Hubbub: PC Debate at Penn Trails
Clinton's Pick for NEH," Washington Times, 14 June 1993, p. D1, D2.
22. National Association of Scholars, "The Wrong Way to Reduce Campus
Tensions." In Aufderheide, ed., pp. 7-10.
23. Barbara Epstein, "Political Correctness and Identity Politics." In
Aufderheide, ed., pp. 148-54.
24. Todd Gitlin, "On the Virtues of a Loose Canon." In Aufderheide, ed.,
pp. 185-90.
25. Karen Lehrman, "Off Course," Mother Jones, September-October 1993,
pp. 45-51, 64, 66, 68.
26. Shalala is quoted in Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal Education: The
Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Vintage Books, 1992),
p. 13.
27. National Association of Scholars, p. 9.
28. Lehrman, pp. 64, 66, 68.
29. Ibid., p. 66.
30. Mortimer J. Adler, "Multiculturalism, Transculturalism, and the Great
Books." In Aufderheide, ed., pp. 59-64.
31. Shalala is quoted in D'Souza, p. 16.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
