textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/cncia006.xml

<xml><p>Date: <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>, 8 Jan 1995 08:21:07 -0500
From: <ent type='PERSON'>James Daugherty</ent> <special>jhdaugh@a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com</special>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent> Quigley Examined; <ent type='ORG'>Multicultural Strategy</ent> of Ruling Class?</p>

<p>A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research Weekly Up-date of January 8, 1995
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***************Contents**********************</p>

<p>1. <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's going on here? by <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel Brandt</ent>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</p>

<p>2. Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite by <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel Brandt</ent>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ </p>

<div> *********************************************</div>

<p>This article is from NameBase NewsLine, which is distributed to users of
NameBase, a microcomputer database with 170000 citations and 78000 names
of ruling class/conspiracy personnel.. This 3-megabyte database is
available on floppy disks and is used by over 700 journalists and
researchers around the world. For a brochure write to: </p>

<p> info@a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com
A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research, PO Box 20273, <ent type='GPE'>Ferndale</ent>, MI 48220-0273</p>

<p> A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research is an authorized distributor of NameBase
$79.00 Postpaid</p>

<p>From NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, April-June 1993:</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's going on here?</p>

<p> by <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel Brandt</ent></p>

<p> When <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent> delivered his acceptance speech at <ent type='ORG'>the Democratic</ent>
convention on July 16, 1992, it didn't contain any surprises, nor were any
expected. There were the usual feel-good platitudes: he wanted to talk
with us "about my hope for the future, my faith in the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> people,
and my vision of the kind of country we can build.... This election is
about putting power back in your hands and putting the government back on
your side.... It is time to heal <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>." Any speech writer could have
pulled boiler-plate from the files and pasted together something similar.
Speeches for occasions like this one aren't meant to be long on specifics.</p>

<p> Toward the end of the speech <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> mentioned that "as a teenager
I heard <ent type='PERSON'>John Kennedy</ent>'s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at
<ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>, I heard that call clarified by a professor named <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent>
Quigley, who said to us that <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> was the greatest country in the
history of the world because our people have always believed in two
things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us
has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."</p>

<p> This was not the first time that <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> had paid tribute to the
memory of his <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent> professor. A few days earlier, a story on
Clinton's background mentioned that he had never forgotten Quigley's last
lecture. "Throughout his career he has evoked [this lecture] in speeches
as the rhetorical foundation for his political philosophy," according to
<ent type='ORG'>the Washington Post</ent>, which offered another <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> quotation praising
Quigley's perspective and influence.[1] A kindly old professor appreciated
as a mentor by an impressionable, idealistic student? This is how it was
interpreted by almost everyone who heard it, particularly since Quigley's
name was not exactly a household word.</p>

<p> But in certain rarified circles among conspiracy theorists, Clinton's
reference to Quigley was surprising. Now that <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> had one foot in the
<ent type='ORG'>White House</ent>, the conservative <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Times soon ran an item that tried
to clear matters up. Professor Quigley, according to the Times,
specialized in the history of a secret group of elite Anglo-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s who
had a decisive influence on world affairs during the first half of this
century. Quigley, in other words, was a conspiracy theorist -- but one who
had an impeccable pedigree as "one of the few insiders who came out and
exposed the <ent type='ORG'>Eastern</ent> establishment plan for world government." These words
belong to <ent type='PERSON'>Tom Eddlam</ent>, research director for <ent type='ORG'>the John Birch Society</ent>. As
someone who had sold two of Quigley's books, <ent type='ORG'>Eddlam</ent> knew plenty about
Quigley. But we can't have a <ent type='NORP'>Democratic</ent> draft-dodging liberal candidate
who admires a <ent type='ORG'>Birch Society</ent> conspiracy hero, so the Times quickly resolved
the issue by noting that Quigley wanted the conspiracy to succeed, whereas
the <ent type='ORG'>Birchers</ent> wanted it to fail.[2] Thus the Times summed matters up, in
six column inches.</p>

<p> Clinton's supporters depict him as an intellectual, someone whose
heroes traffic in solemn ideals. If so, <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> presumably read Tragedy
and Hope, Quigley's best-known book, which appeared while <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> was at
<ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>. At any rate, Quigley's work is well worth looking at, along
with Clinton's early career, for its possible clues to Clinton's thought.</p>

<p> Reading Quigley may turn you into a student of high-level conspiracy,
which is exactly what many influential people around <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> and elsewhere
say you shouldn't be. Almost all of the 3000 members of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> on
Foreign Relations (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>) will go on record ridiculing any of the conspiracy
theories that, according to all polls, are taken seriously by large
majorities of average people. <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> member <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel</ent> Schorr will tell you again
and again that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was a lone nut, and <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> member <ent type='PERSON'>Steven Emerson</ent> will
write article after article debunking Pan Am 103 and October Surprise
theories. It's not that people in high places know better, it's simply
that they have more to protect and cannot afford to be candid.</p>

<p> As new research is published about the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination, for
example, it becomes clear that virtually all the high-level players, from
<ent type='ORG'>LBJ</ent> on down, assumed it was a conspiracy from the moment the shots were
fired. It took until recently for dedicated researchers to dig this fact
out.[3] But thirty years later many journalists still find it useful to
defend <ent type='ORG'>the Warren Commission</ent> or belittle its critics.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent> Quigley was a conspiracy historian, but he was unusual in
that he avoided criticism. Most of his conspiracy research concerned the
role of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in <ent type='GPE'>Britain</ent> from 1891 through
<ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> II. His major work, Tragedy and Hope (1966), contains scattered
references to his twenty years of research in this area, but his detailed
history of <ent type='EVENT'>the Round Table</ent> was written in 1949. The major reason he
avoided criticism is because his work wasn't threatening to people in high
places. Quigley's research was too obscure, and too much had happened in
the world since the events he described. Quigley was also an insider, so
his criticisms of the groups he studied are subdued. He did his
undergraduate and graduate work at <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>, where he received a doctorate
in 1938. He later taught at <ent type='ORG'>Princeton</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> before settling in at
Georgetown's conservative School of Foreign Service in 1941, where he
remained for the rest of his career. He was a consultant for the Brookings
Institution, <ent type='ORG'>the Defense Department</ent>, the State Department, and the
<ent type='ORG'>Navy</ent>,[4] and taught western civilization and history. In 1962 the Center
for Strategic and International Studies was established on the <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>
campus, where it maintained close ties with <ent type='ORG'>the School</ent> of Foreign Service.
<ent type='ORG'>CSIS</ent> included a number of people on its staff who had high-level <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
connections. Quigley moved in these circles until his death in 1977:</p>

<p> I know of the operations of this network [<ent type='EVENT'>the Round Table</ent> Groups]
because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two
years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.
I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of
my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have
objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies,
but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to
remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant
enough to be known.[5]</p>

<p> In his 1949 detailed look at the <ent type='PERSON'>Cecil Rhodes</ent> - <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent> - Alfred
(Lord) Milner - Round Table nexus, published posthumously in 1981 as
The Anglo-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Establishment, Quigley was more forceful with his
criticism. While endorsing this elite's high-minded internationalist
goals, Quigley wrote that "I cannot agree with them on methods," and added
that he found the antidemocratic implications of their inherited wealth
and power "terrifying." This is as tough as he got with his comments:</p>

<p> No country that values its safety should allow what <ent type='ORG'>the Milner Group</ent>
accomplished in <ent type='GPE'>Britain</ent> -- that is, that a small number of men should
be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be
given almost complete control over the publication of the documents
relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence
over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and
should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the
teaching of the history of their own period.[6]</p>

<p> Quigley also avoided criticism because his books are the product of
years of painstaking research into primary diplomatic sources. To qualify
as a critic of his analysis, someone would have to duplicate that research
-- and so far no one has. It also helped that Quigley was doing most of
his work at a time when conspiracy theories were considered curious and
quaint, but not threatening. <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>, at any rate, had no reason to feel
uneasy about citing the virtually unknown Quigley in his convention
acceptance speech.</p>

<p> But serious researchers can hardly afford to pass over Quigley's
potential significance so lightly. <ent type='ORG'>The Washington</ent> Times, to begin with, is
clearly mistaken to brush Quigley off as simply one more liberal elitist
one-worlder. Certainly he is no streetcorner agitator, whether of the
right or left. But his understated critique of his elite colleagues is
nevertheless a searching one.</p>

<p> In the years following the publication of Tragedy and Hope in 1966,
writers on both the right and left began to recognize this. For example,
New Left writer and activist <ent type='PERSON'>Carl Oglesby</ent> came to realize that some of his
ideas about elite power in the U.S. had been anticipated by Quigley.[7]
On the far right, meanwhile, Quigley found a convert in W. <ent type='PERSON'>Cleon Skousen</ent>,
a former <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> agent who later became a star of <ent type='ORG'>the John Birch Society</ent>'s
lecture circuit. In 1970, <ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent> published a book-length review of
Quigley's Tragedy and Hope that was titled The Naked Capitalist. It
quoted so heavily from Quigley's work that Quigley threatened to sue for
copyright infringement.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent> chose to emphasize Quigley's mention of subterranean
financial arrangements between certain Wall Street interests and certain
groups on the U.S. left, in particular <ent type='ORG'>the Communist Party</ent>.[8] <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent>,
meanwhile, shared Quigley's interest in the challenge posed to Wall
Street's <ent type='ORG'>Eastern</ent> elite by newer oil and defense-aerospace money
concentrated in the <ent type='LOC'>Southwest</ent>.[9] But as <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> recognized, Quigley's
meticulous research into elite power shaded insensibly over into the study
of "conspiracy":</p>

<p> Am I borrowing on Quigley then to say with the far right that this
one conspiracy rules the world? The arguments for a conspiracy theory
are indeed often dismissed on the grounds that no one conspiracy
could possibly control everything. But that is not what this theory
sets out to show. Quigley is not saying that modern history is the
invention of an esoteric cabal designing events omnipotently to suit
its ends. The implicit claim, on the contrary, is that a multitude of
conspiracies contend in the night. <ent type='NORP'>Clandestinism</ent> is not the usage of
a handful of rogues, it is a formalized practice of an entire class
in which a thousand hands spontaneously join. Conspiracy is the
normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.[10]</p>

<p> But it's a bad word for polite editors, so the issues surrounding the
"C" word are almost never discussed in print. One needs to tease out
Oglesby's observation that there is a qualitative difference between the
way that the left and right in the U.S. have addressed this issue. Both
tendencies can at least get together on which groups deserve attention:
<ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> on Foreign Relations, which became the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> branch of the
Round Table in 1919; <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent>, which has held secret meetings in Europe
for select participants since 1954; and <ent type='ORG'>the Trilateral Commission</ent>, a group
that began in 1973 and now has 325 members from <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>, Europe, and <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>.
<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> consists of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s only, whereas <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent> adds the Europeans and
TC also adds the <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>ese. The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s in <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent> and TC are almost
always members of <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> also.</p>

<p> But some leftists and left-liberal sociologists prefer to take the
curse off their interest in such groups by calling their investigations
"power-structure research." The implication seems to be that tracing
interlocking directorates, let's say, belongs to science in a way that
tracing <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey Oswald's intelligence connections never could. Still,
G. <ent type='PERSON'>William Domhoff</ent>, the most prominent of the "power structure"
researchers, admits that attempting to maintain this quarantine can itself
become unscientific:</p>

<p> Critics of a power elite theory often call it 'conspiratorial,' which
is the academic equivalent of ending a discussion by yelling
<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent>. It is difficult to lay this charge to rest once and for
all because these critics really mean something much broader than the
dictionary definition of conspiracy. All right, then, if 'conspiracy'
means that these men are aware of their interests, know each other
personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to
hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate or react to events and
issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>, not to
mention in <ent type='ORG'>the Committee for Economic Development</ent>, the Business
Council, <ent type='ORG'>the National Security Council</ent>, and the Central Intelligence
Agency.[11]</p>

<p> And what makes Domhoff's middle ground on the problem of conspiracy
so difficult to maintain is precisely the existence of inconveniently
concrete cases like Oswald's. If there was a conspiracy and cover-up, then
it was carried out by interested individuals rather than by blind social
forces. The best that <ent type='NORP'>Domhoff</ent> can do with the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination is to
ignore it, which he does.</p>

<p> But this won't do for <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Albert</ent>, editor of the leftist Z
Magazine and a <ent type='NORP'>Domhoff</ent>ian "structuralist," who has attempted to finesse
this problem. His argument on the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination, as best I can
understand it, goes something like this: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> was a predictable product of
established institutions; these institutions wanted a war in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>; it's
inconceivable that <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> would have disagreed with this because his behavior
was determined (that is, he could not have changed his mind), and
therefore, the assassination of <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>, conspiracy or not, made no difference
to our history and is unimportant. The problem with Albert's approach is
that he's fairly close to vulgar Marxism, which by now has been thoroughly
discredited.</p>

<p> To my thinking, the reason why the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination is so important
is this: It's one thing to believe that there are rich people who become
richer because their environment tells them to behave that way, and quite
another to believe that there is a powerful, secret government that
doesn't have to play by the rules. If you can prove that the assassination
was a conspiracy, then the first notion becomes silly and insignificant.
Essentially, conspiracy theories restore notions of freedom and
responsibility that have been stripped from from the "value free" social
science establishment. Quigley is between <ent type='NORP'>Domhoff</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> on our
spectrum, which is not a left-right spectrum but rather a conspiracy
spectrum. <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> deals seriously with the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination while Quigley
does not. But Quigley at least follows the money trail and believes that
human agency and individual actors are important forces in history.
<ent type='NORP'>Domhoff</ent>, on the other hand, is more interested in class distinctions and
general behavior.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent> is much more conspiratorial than <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent>. He applies
conspiracy thinking to complex issues where a middle ground would be
productive (such as <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent>, and Trilateralism), and treats them
in an either/or fashion as if they were similar to the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination.
It doesn't work very well. <ent type='EVENT'>The New World</ent> Order may be a bad idea, but to
assume as a starting point that it's a <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> plot doesn't help us
understand the who or why behind it.</p>

<p> Before returning to <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>, it will help to fill out our spectrum a
bit. So far we have <ent type='NORP'>Domhoff</ent>, Quigley, and <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> in a line, and <ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent>
off further on the pro-conspiracy end. On the anti-conspiracy end we
should add <ent type='PERSON'>Erwin Knoll</ent>, longtime editor of The Progressive. According to
<ent type='ORG'>Knoll</ent>, "none of the conspiracy theories we have scrutinized meets the test
of accuracy -- or even plausibility -- we normally apply to material
published in The Progressive, so none has appeared in the pages of this
magazine.[12] Knoll's advisory board includes three members of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent>
on Foreign Relations, so this fits okay. There's also <ent type='PERSON'>Chip Berlet</ent>, who
berates unwitting leftists for falling prey to conspiracy theories that
the devious right has conspired to foist on them. He isn't critical of
conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the
theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations.[13] <ent type='PERSON'>Berlet</ent>
doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show.</p>

<p> A conspiracy bookseller named <ent type='ORG'>Lloyd Miller</ent>[14] is farther out than
<ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Miller</ent> is aware of Quigley and sells his books. While <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> is
toying with an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> ruling-class Yankee-Cowboy split that goes back a
generation or so, <ent type='PERSON'>Miller</ent> dwells on a split between <ent type='ORG'>the Knights</ent> of Malta
and <ent type='ORG'>the Knights</ent> Templar going back to the year 1307. The modern derivative
of this struggle provides his hypothesis that "the overt and covert organs
of the Vatican and <ent type='GPE'><ent type='NORP'>British</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Empire</ent></ent> are locked in mortal combat for control
of the world." In Miller's theory, <ent type='ORG'>Jesuit</ent>-controlled <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent> is the
Vatican headquarters on the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> front, and Quigley is a Vatican agent
exposing the Anglo-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> connection. <ent type='PERSON'>Miller</ent> is more sophisticated than
this description allows, but I have difficulties with him. On a case by
case basis, the theory produces as many questions as answers. More
importantly, perhaps, my historical interests and imagination don't extend
much beyond the last 100 years.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Miller</ent> is mentioned because there are similarities between his
analysis and the theories of Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. For anyone who wants to
figure out what <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> is talking about, it is necessary to be
conversant with esoterica concerning <ent type='NORP'>Freemasonry</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>the Knights</ent> of Malta,
and <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> imperialism. The alternative is to see all of the above as
code words for <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, and LaRouche's enemies -- namely <ent type='PERSON'>Chip Berlet</ent>, Dennis
King, and the Anti-Defamation League -- tend to take this easy way out. I
don't believe that right-wing globalist conspiracy theories in general, or
LaRouche's theories in particular, can be dismissed by claiming that they
are disguised anti-Semitism -- that is to say, code-word versions of the
old international <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> banking conspiracies. While there is some
anti-Semitism on the right, it is no longer the driving force it might
have once been. Most right-wing theories are more sophisticated than
<ent type='PERSON'>Berlet</ent>, King, or the <ent type='ORG'>ADL</ent> are ready to believe.</p>

<p> I don't consider any of the people I've mentioned as crackpots,
because I'm convinced that there are vital issues at stake. All of them
are doing their best with checkered evidence, and for the most part I
share their instincts if not always their conclusions. Regardless of where
we decide to place <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent> on the spectrum, which will be discussed
after a review of his career, at least two other former (and future?)
presidential candidates have staked out positions. <ent type='PERSON'>Ross Perot</ent> believes
that there is massive corruption and occasional conspiracies in high
places; he belongs somewhere close to Quigley. <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Robertson</ent> is a less
hysterical version of <ent type='PERSON'>Skousen</ent>, modified for post anti-Communism, and
should also be taken seriously. Along with <ent type='PERSON'>Ross Perot</ent>'s movement, some see
Robertson's <ent type='ORG'>Christian Coalition</ent> as a populist challenge to our one-party
<ent type='ORG'>Republocrat</ent> system.</p>

<p> Most of <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Robertson</ent>'s latest book, <ent type='EVENT'>The New World</ent> Order (1991), is
a popularized yet articulate presentation of recent <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> history as
controlled by <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> on Foreign Relations, <ent type='ORG'>the Trilateral Commission</ent>,
<ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve System</ent>, and Wall Street. Several pages
are spent on Quigley's theories, which provide the background for an
understanding of <ent type='ORG'>the Rhodes Trust</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>, and the foundations with their
"One World agenda." Unfortunately, the only mention of this book in the
left press ignores the analytical material that <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent> draws on, and
dismisses "its more bizarre conspiracy theories such as those targeting
mainstream figures as dupes of the Devil."[15]</p>

<p> Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent> finally couches his theories in a Biblical context
(after keeping the Bible out of it for the first two-thirds of the book),
and most of us don't find the Bible necessary or compelling. But when
leftists skip to the end in order to belittle his critique, at a time
when they have lost the capacity to provide an alternative critique, this
is self-defeating. My main objection to <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent> is that he doesn't
deserve to have a monopoly on these important issues; his vision is too
apocalyptic and too narrow. Unlike the politically-correct "progressive"
press, however, I consider him potentially closer to populism than to
fascism.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent> spends several pages recounting the 1976 campaign of Jimmy
<ent type='PERSON'>Carter</ent>, and describes how he concluded that Carter's strings were being
pulled by the same <ent type='NORP'>Trilateralists</ent> who created him. A similar analysis --
much more detailed and convincing -- can also be found from a leftist
perspective.[16] It wasn't too many years ago, before politically-correct
thinking carried the day, that the left took Trilateralism seriously.
Since 1980, the only left perspective on Trilateralism has been written by
a Canadian professor.[17] His Gramscian categories tend to be academically
overbearing, but he took the trouble to interview 100 Trilateral
Commission members.</p>

<p> The <ent type='PERSON'>Jimmy Carter</ent> story is depressing. <ent type='PERSON'>Hamilton Jordan</ent> reportedly
said, "If, after the inauguration you find Cy Vance as secretary of state
and <ent type='PERSON'>Zbigniew Brzezinski</ent> as head of national security, then I would say
that we failed." That's exactly what happened, and seventeen other key
members of the administration were also <ent type='NORP'>Trilateralists</ent>. For his entire
administration, every move on foreign policy was cleared with the
hard-liner Brzezinski.</p>

<p> Robertson's book was written just one year before Clinton's name
became a household word. One wonders how <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent> reacted to Clinton's
reference to Quigley in his acceptance speech. And then what <ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent>
thought when he learned that <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> checked off on almost every group
you care to name: he is a <ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Scholar</ent>, a <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> member, a Trilateral
Commission member, a <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent> participant, and most of his appointees
are at least one of the above. If Clinton's mention of Quigley in July
1992 had been an isolated case, then one might interpret this as simply a
ploy to disguise his elitist loyalties. But <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> has mentioned Quigley
many times over the years, and I suspect that on this he is sincere. Then
again, it's hard to believe that <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> is unaware of Quigley's
anti-elitist tendencies. What's going on here?</p>

<p> After shaking <ent type='PERSON'>John Kennedy</ent>'s hand, they say that William Jefferson
<ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> never doubted that he was headed for the <ent type='ORG'>White House</ent>. A band major
in high school, he was favored by his school principal, who encouraged him
to run for class offices and to participate in a leadership program that
sponsored his trip to <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>. He attended <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent> from 1964-1968,
majoring in international affairs and immediately running for student
office ("Hello, I'm <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent>. Will you help me run for president of
the freshman class?"). When he wasn't listening to Quigley or networking
and glad-handing his way through a student council election, he was
working in the Senate Foreign Relations Office of senator J. William
Fulbright, an <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Democrat</ent> and former <ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Scholar</ent> who started
criticizing the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> policy in 1966. During his first two
years, <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> was a trainee in Georgetown's <ent type='ORG'>ROTC</ent> unit, and could be seen
around campus in <ent type='ORG'>Army</ent> fatigues.</p>

<p> Between Quigley and his <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent> connections, Fulbright and his
<ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Trust</ent> connections, and Clinton's keen interest in his own political
power, it's not surprising that the big, bearded, amiable <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> became a
<ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Scholar</ent> in 1968 and went off to spend two years at <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent>. Another
power behind <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> was <ent type='PERSON'>Winthrop</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> (1912-1973), two-time
<ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent> governor of <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent>, who reportedly functioned as a father
figure. At <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> participated in one or more demonstrations
against U.S. policy in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> in front of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> embassy, and used
his connections to stay out of the draft. After <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent> he went to <ent type='ORG'>Yale</ent> Law
School. In the fall of 1972 he directed McGovern's campaign in <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent>. He
ran for <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent> in 1974 after finishing <ent type='ORG'>Yale</ent>, but barely
lost. Then he taught law in <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent> until 1976, when he was elected state
attorney general after running unopposed. That year he also headed up the
state campaign for <ent type='PERSON'>Jimmy Carter</ent>. Two years later he won the race for
governor.</p>

<p> The anti-war sentiments among Clinton's <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent> colleagues did not
produce an antipathy toward the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Earl</ent>, later an assistant to
Oliver <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> at <ent type='ORG'>the National Security Council</ent>, was one of these
colleagues. And while governor, <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> was aware that an airfield in
<ent type='ORG'>Mena</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent> played a major role in secret contra logistics involving
gun and drug running. Clinton's security chief is being sued for an
alleged <ent type='ORG'>Mena</ent>-related frame-up, and many believe that there were cover-ups
by both state and federal agencies.[18]</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent> is promoted as the first baby boomer and anti-war
activist in the <ent type='ORG'>White House</ent>. Yet I was also these things, and I cannot
identify with <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> at all. In order for this piece to make any sense,
it's important that I show how two different anti-war protesters might
have stood together in a demonstration for different reasons, after
arriving from different directions.</p>

<p> To begin with, one has to divide the student movement into two
periods, before and after 1968. This year was pivotal: the <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent>
campaign, the <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>MLK</ent> assassinations, the police riot in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>.
Anti-war protesters on conservative campuses such as my University of
Southern <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> and Clinton's <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>, were almost always bona fide
prior to 1968. There was no percentage in it otherwise, as the polls were
overwhelmingly in favor of U.S. involvement in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>. At <ent type='ORG'>USC</ent> I organized
a peaceful draft card turn-in ceremony in 1968. We were physically ejected
from the campus by fraternity boys, and had to continue in a church across
the street, where the frat rats feared to tread. A poll by our student
newspaper showed that most students agreed with the fraternity. At <ent type='ORG'>USC</ent>,
and the same was probably true of <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>, a student politician
couldn't get more than a handful of votes by taking an anti-war position.</p>

<p> In 1969 everything suddenly changed. Major anti-war organizing
efforts appeared on campus, coordinated through national networks. I
guessed that these new activists, who seemed to come out of nowhere to
organize the <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> Moratorium, were former <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent>-Kennedy campaign
workers. Although I had been co-chairman of our SDS chapter the previous
year, these were all new faces to me. I was astounded and a little
suspicious. Everything had turned around completely: now no student
politician could hope to win without the long hair, the beads and sandals,
and speaking at freshmen orientation by abandoning the lectern and sitting
on the edge of the stage, "rapping" to them movement-style.</p>

<p> When it came time to confront the draft, these same student
politicians used their mysterious connections to get out the easy way.
Sometimes they pulled strings to secure a place in the overbooked National
Guard, but most got out clean. Almost half of all undergraduate men were
released when the first lottery was held at the end of the year, which
of course brought our anti-draft movement to a halt. I now refer to my
1969 experience as the "<ent type='PERSON'>Sam Hurst</ent> syndrome," after the articulate and
good-looking student body president who sat on the edge of the stage and
rode into power on the post-1968 wave. It's my euphemism for slick,
well-disguised self-interest and a great head of hair.</p>

<p> I noticed that new students could not tell the difference between Sam
Hurst's activism and mine. Students with safe lottery numbers sadistically
inquired about my number -- they would find it amusing if my number was
also safe, now that I had been convicted for refusing induction. It was
every man for himself. Then it got worse. By September 1970 the big
movement on campus centered on <ent type='PERSON'>Timothy Leary</ent>'s old colleague Richard
Alpert, who now called himself Baba Ram <ent type='PERSON'>Dass</ent> and told overflow crowds that
the best way to do revolution was to sit in the <ent type='ORG'>lotus</ent> position and do
nothing. Soon <ent type='PERSON'>Rennie Davis</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> Eight fame was spending his time
puppy-dogging a teenaged guru from India. Within another year there was no
discernible movement at all, just embarrassing burnouts like the Weather
Underground and eventually the Symbionese Liberation <ent type='ORG'>Army</ent>, which kidnapped
and brainwashed <ent type='PERSON'>Patty Hearst</ent>.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent> is even slicker than <ent type='PERSON'>Sam Hurst</ent>. His anti-war activism,
as well as everything else he did, developed from a focused interest in
his own future. After 1968 it would have been unthinkable for <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> to
ignore the anti-war movement and face political obsolescence -- not
because of his revulsion over carpet bombing, but because it was time to
hedge his bets. <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> is not an intellectual, he's merely very clever.
A clever person can manipulate his environment, while an intellectual can
project beyond it and, for example, identify with the suffering of the
<ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>ese people. But this involves some risk, whereas power politics is
the art of pursuing the possible and minimizing this risk. Almost
everything that happened to the student movement is best explained without
conspiracy theories. There are, however, some bits of curious evidence
that should be briefly mentioned. Each of these alone doesn't amount to
much, but taken together they suggest that something more was happening --
the possibility that by 1969 a significant sector of the ruling class had
decided to buy into the counterculture for purposes of manipulation and
control:</p>

<p>* Student leaders <ent type='PERSON'>James Kunen</ent>[19] and <ent type='PERSON'>Carl Oglesby</ent>[20] both report that
in the summer of 1968, the organization <ent type='ORG'>Business International</ent>, which
had links to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, sent high-level representatives to meet with
SDS. These people wanted to help organize demonstrations for the
upcoming conventions in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Miami</ent>. SDS refused the offer, but
the experience convinced <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent> that the ruling class was at war
with itself, and he began developing his Yankee-Cowboy theory.</p>

<p>* <ent type='PERSON'>Tom Hayden</ent>, who by 1986 was defending his state assembly seat against
those trying to oust him because of his anti-war record, was quoted
as saying that while he was protesting against the <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> War, he
was also cooperating with U.S. intelligence agents.[21]</p>

<p>* The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was of course involved with LSD testing, but there is also
evidence that it was later involved in the distribution of LSD within
the counterculture.[22]</p>

<p>* Feminist leader <ent type='PERSON'>Gloria Steinem</ent>[23] and congressman <ent type='PERSON'>Allard Lowenstein</ent>
both had major <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> connections. <ent type='PERSON'>Lowenstein</ent> was president of the
National Student Association, which was funded by the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> until
exposed by <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> magazine in 1967. He and another <ent type='ORG'>NSA</ent> officer, Sam
<ent type='PERSON'>Brown</ent>, were key organizers behind the 1969 <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> Moratorium.[24]
(In 1977 <ent type='PERSON'>Brown</ent> became the director of ACTION under <ent type='PERSON'>Jimmy Carter</ent>; his
activism, which was more intense and more sincere than Clinton's,
didn't hurt his career either.)</p>

<p>* Symbionese Liberation <ent type='ORG'>Army</ent> leader <ent type='PERSON'>Donald</ent> DeFreeze appears to have
been conditioned in a behavior modification program sponsored by
elements of U.S. intelligence.[25]</p>

<p>* The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> has a long history of infiltrating international
organizations, from labor to students to religion. I submit that
if an anti-war activist was involved in this type of international
jet-setting, the burden is on them to show that they were not
compromised. <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> comes close to assuming this burden.</p>

<p> The major point here is that by 1969, protest was not necessarily
anti-Establishment. When thousands of students are in the streets every
day, and the troops you sent to <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> are deserting, sooner or later
it's going to cut into your profits. If you can't beat them, then you have
to co-opt them. Clinton's mentors and sponsors realized this, <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>
himself sensed the shift, and until more evidence is available it's fair
to assume that his anti-war activity was at a minimum self-serving, and
perhaps even duplicitous.</p>

<p> How else can we explain why he has recently embraced the very
organizations who got us into <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> in the first place? He joined the
Council on Foreign Relations in 1989, attended a <ent type='NORP'>Bilderberg</ent> meeting in
1991, is currently a member of <ent type='ORG'>the Trilateral Commission</ent>, and has
appointed numerous <ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Scholar</ent>s, <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> members, and <ent type='NORP'>Trilateralists</ent> to key
positions. These are the very groups whose historical roots, according to
Quigley, are essentially conspiratorial and antidemocratic. A cynic would
say that <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> appropriated from Quigley what he needed -- which was a
precise description of where the power is -- and ignored those aspects of
Quigley that did not fit his agenda. He may have read a book or two by
Quigley, but he didn't inhale them.</p>

<p> On February 2, when Clinton's nominee for <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> director was asked some
polite questions, Senator <ent type='PERSON'>John Chafee</ent> (R-RI) joked about what he called
"a <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> that's taking over the administration."[26] Be sure to smile when
you say that, Senator. The new director, R. <ent type='PERSON'>James Woolsey</ent>, was an early
supporter of the contras and served as defense attorney for <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Ledeen</ent>
and <ent type='PERSON'>Charles</ent> E. <ent type='PERSON'>Allen</ent>, he has <ent type='ORG'>Georgetown</ent>-<ent type='ORG'>CSIS</ent> connections, and he's a
<ent type='ORG'>Rhodes Scholar</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> member, and <ent type='ORG'>Yale</ent> Law School graduate, several years
ahead of <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Yale</ent>, of course, is thick with <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> connections.[27] The
new <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> director was close to <ent type='PERSON'>Brent Scowcroft</ent> at the <ent type='PERSON'>Bush</ent> <ent type='ORG'>White House</ent>, and
is a director of <ent type='ORG'>Martin Marietta</ent>, the eighth-largest defense corporation,
whose contracts include the MX missle and Star Wars weapons.</p>

<p> It's becoming clear that on inauguration day we merely had a changing
of the guard. But it's still the same old team at headquarters, wherever
that is, and you won't find any television cameras there. Ultimately,
then, Clinton's references to Quigley are worth as much as his anti-war
record. And both are worth nothing at all.</p>

<p> 1. <ent type='PERSON'>David Maraniss</ent>, "<ent type='PERSON'>Bill Clinton</ent>: Born to Run...and Run...and Run.
<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Post, July 13, 1992, p. A1.</p>

<p> 2. "<ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> a Bircher?", <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Times, July 22, 1992, p. A6. For a
more useful discussion of the right and Quigley, see <ent type='PERSON'>Frank</ent> P. Mintz,
The Liberty Lobby and the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Right: Race, Conspiracy and
Culture (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1985), pp. 145-51.</p>

<p> 3. This conclusion in inescapable after reading <ent type='PERSON'>Dick Russell</ent>, The Man
Who Knew Too Much (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent> &amp; Graf, 1992).</p>

<p> 4. Who's Who in <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>, 1976-1977 (<ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>Marquis Who</ent>'s Who, 1976).</p>

<p> 5. <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent> Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
(<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: <ent type='ORG'>Macmillan Company</ent>, 1966), p. 950.</p>

<p> 6. <ent type='PERSON'>Carroll</ent> Quigley, The Anglo-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Establishment (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Books in
Focus, 1981), pp. xi, 197.</p>

<p> 7. <ent type='PERSON'>Carl Oglesby</ent>, The Yankee and Cowboy War (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Berkley Publishing,
1977), pp.6-7.</p>

<p> 8. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pp. 945-9.</p>

<p> 9. <ent type='PERSON'>Ibid</ent>., pp. 1245-6.</p>

<p>10. <ent type='PERSON'>Oglesby</ent>, p. 25.</p>

<p>11. G. <ent type='PERSON'>William Domhoff</ent>, "Who Made <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Foreign Policy, 1945-1963?" In
<ent type='PERSON'>David Horowitz</ent>, ed., Corporations and <ent type='EVENT'>the Cold War</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Monthly
Review, 1969), p.34.</p>

<p>12. <ent type='PERSON'>Erwin Knoll</ent>, "Memo from the Editor," The Progressive, March 1992,
p. 4.</p>

<p>13. <ent type='PERSON'>Chip Berlet</ent>, Right Woos Left (Political Research Associates, 678
Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205, Cambridge MA 02139), July 28, 1992,
$6.50.</p>

<p>14. A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research, P.O. Box 20273, <ent type='GPE'>Ferndale</ent> MI 48220.</p>

<p>15. <ent type='PERSON'>Kate Cornell</ent>, "<ent type='ORG'>The Covert Tactics</ent> and Overt Agenda of the New
Christian Right," Covert Action Quarterly, No. 43, Winter 1992-93,
p. 51.</p>

<p>16. Laurence H. Shoup, "<ent type='PERSON'>Jimmy Carter</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Trilateralists</ent>: Presidential
Roots"; Laurence H. Shoup and <ent type='PERSON'>William Minter</ent>, "Shaping a New World
Order: The Council on Foreign Relations' Blueprint for World
Hegemony, 1939-1945"; and several other relevant articles. In Holly
Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The <ent type='ORG'>Trilateral Commission</ent> and Elite
Planning for World Management (Boston: South End Press, 1980).</p>

<p>17. <ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Gill</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Hegemony and <ent type='ORG'>the Trilateral Commission</ent> (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).</p>

<p>18. Association of National Security Alumni, <ent type='ORG'>Unclassified</ent>, February-March
1992, pp. 6-9.</p>

<p>19. <ent type='PERSON'>James Simon Kunen</ent>, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College
Revolutionary (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Avon Books, 1970), pp. 130-1.</p>

<p>20. <ent type='PERSON'>Steve Weissman</ent>, Big Brother and the Holding Company (<ent type='GPE'>Palo Alto</ent> CA:
<ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> Press, 1974), pp. 298-9.</p>

<p>21. AP in <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent> Examiner, June 21, 1986.</p>

<p>22. <ent type='PERSON'>Martin</ent> A. <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bruce Shlain</ent>, Acid Dreams: The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, LSD, and the
Sixties Rebellion (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Grove Press, 1985).</p>

<p>23. <ent type='PERSON'>Kai Bird</ent>, The Chairman: John J. McCloy, The Making of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Establishment (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1992), pp. 483-4, 727.</p>

<p>24. <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Cummings</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>The Pied Piper</ent>: Allard K. <ent type='PERSON'>Lowenstein</ent> and the
Liberal Dream (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Grove Press, 1985).</p>

<p>25. <ent type='PERSON'>Douglas Valentine</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>The Phoenix</ent> Program (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>William Morrow</ent>,
1990), p. 337.</p>

<p>26. <ent type='PERSON'>Douglas Jehl</ent>, "<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> Nominee Wary of Budget Cuts," <ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> Times,
February 3, 1993, p. A18.</p>

<p>27. Robin W. Winks, <ent type='PERSON'>Cloak</ent> and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961
(<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>William Morrow</ent>, 1987).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</p>

<p>This article is from NameBase NewsLine, which is distributed to users of
NameBase, a microcomputer database with 170000 citations and 78000 names
of ruling class/conspiracy personnel. This 3-megabyte database is
available on floppy disks and is used by over 700 journalists and
researchers around the world. For a brochure write to: </p>

<p> info@a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com
A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research, PO Box 20273, <ent type='GPE'>Ferndale</ent>, MI 48220-0273</p>

<p> A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research is an authorized distributor of NameBase
$79.00 Postpaid</p>

<p>From NameBase NewsLine, No. 3, October-December 1993:</p>

<p> Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite</p>

<p> by <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel Brandt</ent>
_____</p>

<p>Opportunity is rapidly vanishing, poorly masked by an institutionalized
preference for diversity. Leftist academics in <ent type='GPE'>ivory towers</ent> 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.
_____</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> for Cultural Freedom (<ent type='ORG'>CCF</ent>) was funded first by the
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> and then, after this was exposed in 1967, by the <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Foundation. <ent type='ORG'>CCF</ent>
created magazines, published books, and conducted conferences throughout
the world, in an effort to wean intellectuals to democratic liberalism.[1]</p>

<p> The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was also busy in <ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent>. In an article titled "The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> as an
<ent type='ORG'>Equal Opportunity Employer</ent>" that first appeared in 1969 in <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> and
was reprinted in the <ent type='ORG'>Black Panther</ent> newspaper and elsewhere, members from
the <ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent> Research Group presented convincing evidence that "the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> has
promoted black cultural nationalism to reinforce neo-colonialism in
<ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent>." In their introduction they added that "activists in the black
colony within <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> 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-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> culture."[2]</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent></ent> that appeared in a recent Harper's.[3] <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent>
paints a picture of multiculturalism and shows, in broad strokes, how
multiculturalism serves capitalism. To appreciate the significance of
multiculturalism we must, as <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent> 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 <ent type='EVENT'>the Cold War</ent>.</p>

<p> From the time that this war began in 1947, the <ent type='ORG'>Carnegie</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent>, and
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Foundations, in cooperation with the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, began funding
programs at major U.S. universities such as <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>MIT</ent>, and <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent>.
They began with an emphasis on <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> studies, but by the mid-1960s these
three foundations and the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Diamond</ent> tracks <ent type='ORG'>the Olin</ent> Foundation and
<ent type='ORG'>Smith</ent>-Richardson money behind Dinesh D'<ent type='PERSON'>Souza</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>the National</ent> Association
of Scholars (<ent type='ORG'>NAS</ent>), two of the more vocal critics of multiculturalism.[5]
<ent type='PERSON'>Diamond</ent> points out that the <ent type='ORG'>Smith</ent>-Richardson Foundation has its own <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
connections, even though they pale in significance alongside the <ent type='ORG'>Carnegie</ent>
- <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> - <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the Reece Committee</ent>
on the role of foundations in 1954, continued through the 1960s with the
John <ent type='ORG'>Birch Society</ent>'s attacks on <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> on Foreign Relations (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>),
and later on <ent type='ORG'>the Trilateral Commission</ent>, and continues today with Pat
<ent type='PERSON'>Robertson</ent>,[6] <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Buchanan</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ross Perot</ent>, Spotlight, and others. It's not
a right-left problem, but rather a top-bottom problem.[7]</p>

<p> Secondly, whatever the funding enjoyed by D'<ent type='PERSON'>Souza</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>NAS</ent>, 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, <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent>, elitist right found on the
<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> roster) is also opposed to NAFTA, every bit as firmly as the
trade-union <ent type='NORP'>Democrat</ent>s. 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.</p>

<p> For those who feel that the forces behind the debate are instructive,
it's worthwhile noting that the <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Foundation began supporting feminist
groups and women's studies programs in the early 1970s. Just ten years
earlier they were busy training <ent type='NORP'>Indonesian</ent> elites (using <ent type='GPE'>Berkeley</ent>
professors as instructors) to take over from <ent type='PERSON'>Sukarno</ent>,[8] which occurred
soon after a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>-sponsored coup in 1965 that led to the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands. Did the folks at <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Foundation have a bleeding
change of heart, or are they continuing the same battle on another front?
It would appear to be the latter. <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Foundation.[10] The ruling elite knows
exactly what it's doing, and they are remarkably consistent.</p>

<p> When <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> blew the whistle on the CIA's domestic cultural
activities in 1967, President <ent type='PERSON'>Johnson</ent> appointed a committee consisting of
elitists <ent type='PERSON'>Nicholas Katzenbach</ent> (Rhodes scholar and former <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Foundation
fellow), <ent type='ORG'>OSS</ent> old-boy <ent type='PERSON'>John Gardner</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>Carnegie</ent> Corporation president,
1955-1965), and <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> director <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Helms</ent> to study the problem. The
Katzenbach Committee reported that they expected private foundations,
which had grown from 2200 in 1955 to 18000 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 <ent type='NORP'>Democratic</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> adopted this recommendation by establishing the
National Endowment for Democracy (<ent type='ORG'>NED</ent>). By now it requires a leap of good
faith to draw distinctions among complicated overlapping networks of <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
funding, <ent type='ORG'>NED</ent> funding, and funding by foundations such as <ent type='ORG'>Carnegie</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent>,
and <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>. 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel</ent> Patrick
Moynihan, no less:</p>

<p> 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 $32109. Half a
generation later in 1988 it was, in constant 1988 dollars, $32191, 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]</p>

<p> More <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> women are working just to keep the family going, while
more <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>ese women can afford to stay home and are choosing to do so. The
flip side of increased opportunities for <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> women is that they can
no longer choose to stay out of the labor force. As <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent></ent> asks, "If
multiculturalism is what its proponents claim it is, why has its moment
seen the richest one percent of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s grow richer and the
deunionization of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> workplace? There is something wrong
with this picture."[12]</p>

<p> Consider, too, the situation of <ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent>n-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s. 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Jesse Jacksons</ent> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent></ent> notes, their relationship to the real world
is peripheral:</p>

<p> For all their writings on power, hegemony, and oppression, the campus
<ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent> 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]</p>

<p> While self-justification may motivate tenured <ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent>, 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:</p>

<p> 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]</p>

<p> 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. <ent type='ORG'>Feminists</ent> call this the "glass
ceiling."</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Robertson</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Christian Coalition</ent>, which plans to organize minorities
in support of traditional family values, only 36.6 percent of <ent type='NORP'>Hispanics</ent>,
37.6 percent of blacks, and 10 percent of whites agreed with the statement
that "<ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent>n-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s, <ent type='NORP'>Hispanics</ent> and other minorities should received
special preference in hiring to make up for past inequalities."[15] The
agenda of victimology, defined by <ent type='PERSON'>George Will</ent> as "the proliferation of
groups nursing grievances and demanding entitlements,"[16] is not an
agenda shared widely off campus.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> (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
<ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>, $10.09 in <ent type='GPE'>Singapore</ent>, $6.06 in <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>, and $10.97 in <ent type='GPE'>Korea</ent>.[17]</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> Recent literacy tests by <ent type='ORG'>the Education Department</ent>, the most
comprehensive in two decades, show that <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> adults aged 21 to 25
scored significantly lower than eight years ago, and that about 40 million
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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] <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> 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.</p>

<p> The owners of corporate <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent>
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."</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of Maryland,
<ent type='PERSON'>Josephine Withers</ent> taught "<ent type='ORG'>Contemporary Issues</ent> 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]</p>

<p> For an example of actionable hate speech, we go to <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>Pennsylvania</ent>. The theft of 14000 copies of the student newspaper by black
students unhappy with a white columnist went unpunished at <ent type='ORG'>Penn</ent>. 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]</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>NAS</ent> have expressed concern over standards of
scholarship and rising campus tensions.[22] Thoughtful progressives like
<ent type='PERSON'>Barbara Epstein</ent> worry that "a politics that is organized around defending
identities ... forces people's experience into categories that are too
narrow."[23] <ent type='PERSON'>Todd Gitlin</ent>, a former 1960s student leader who now teaches
at <ent type='GPE'>Berkeley</ent>, echoes similar sentiments:</p>

<p> 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]</p>

<p> Even <ent type='ORG'>Mother Jones</ent> magazine is having second thoughts. Karen <ent type='PERSON'>Lehrman</ent>,
a thirtyish conservative who visited 20 women's studies classes at
<ent type='GPE'>Berkeley</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Iowa</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Smith</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Dartmouth</ent>, delivered a withering critique of
course content in a recent issue.[25] The same <ent type='ORG'>Mother Jones</ent> issue also
tantalizes with a teaser for future articles: "Is <ent type='PERSON'>Hillary</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>s
really represent. Or at least discover that <ent type='PERSON'>Donna Shalala</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>FOH</ent> (friend of
<ent type='PERSON'>Hillary</ent>) and chancellor of <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of Wisconsin (before <ent type='PERSON'>Hillary</ent>
appointed her <ent type='ORG'>HHS</ent> secretary), is a member of both <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> on Foreign
Relations and the super-elitist <ent type='ORG'>Trilateral Commission</ent> (as is Hillary's
husband). <ent type='PERSON'>Shalala</ent> has called for "a basic transformation of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
higher education in the name of multiculturalism and diversity."[26]</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>NAS</ent> worries that such programs are making the
situation on campus worse, not better:</p>

<p> '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]</p>

<p> 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
<ent type='GPE'>California</ent>, 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.</p>

<p> Ethical questions should be raised when such techniques are applied
with a political agenda. In the late 1960s in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent>, a group with
liberal Protestant connections calling itself the "<ent type='ORG'>Urban</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Plunge</ent>" organized
sensitivity immersions for white liberals from the suburbs. After several
days or more of intensive ghetto exposure organized by charismatic <ent type='ORG'>Plunge</ent>
staffers, interspersed with group "attack therapy" sessions, many
participants were duly impressed. I attended two or three "<ent type='ORG'>Plunge</ent>s" in
1967-1968 in <ent type='GPE'>Los Angeles</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent>. In early 1970, when I believed
in pacifism and was appealing a conviction for draft resistance, the Los
Angeles "<ent type='ORG'>Plunge</ent>" 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.</p>

<p> 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. <ent type='NORP'>Hispanics</ent> were only recently recognized on a par with
blacks, even in the huge barrios of <ent type='GPE'>Los Angeles</ent>. Draft resisters risked
prison in an effort to stop the machine, and many who served in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>
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, <ent type='PERSON'>Lehrman</ent> discovers that victimology is all
the rage:</p>

<p> 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]</p>

<p> Another sore point for the critics is the moral relativism of today's
<ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent>, particularly in the humanities. <ent type='PERSON'>Lehrman</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>Western</ent>-culture feminism, however,
the relativism is conveniently forgotten.[29] <ent type='PERSON'>Mortimer</ent> J. Adler feels that
those who assert subjectivism have dug themselves into a philosophical
hole:</p>

<p> For such <ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent> ... 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 <ent type='NORP'>multiculturalists</ent>, 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]</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>McCone</ent>, was a former <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> director. In the
library there was exactly one book to be found that was critical of the
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>The Invisible Government</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Wise and <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> B. <ent type='PERSON'>Ross</ent>, published
in 1964) and it included some material on <ent type='PERSON'>McCone</ent>. Then I began looking at
the other University of Southern <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> trustees, and discovered some
of the people behind Governor Ronald Reagan and Richard <ent type='PERSON'>Nixon</ent>.</p>

<p> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent>. (Years later a former postal worker told me that
at his post office, the feds collected lists of <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> subscribers.)
When it comes to naming and describing the ruling elite, the facts are
inconvenient for those who are nursing careers. Students at <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent>
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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Donna Shalala</ent>, now secretary of <ent type='ORG'>Health and Human Services</ent>, once
remarked:</p>

<p> The university is institutionally racist. <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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]</p>

<p> She and her <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Trilateralist</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the Balkanization</ent> of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> middle class. Comparatively
speaking, this class is one of world's few remaining reservoirs of
unprotected, unexploited wealth.</p>

<p> 1. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter Coleman</ent>, The Liberal Conspiracy: The <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> for Cultural
Freedom and the Struggle for the Mind of Postwar Europe (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>:
Free Press, 1989), 333 pages.</p>

<p> 2. <ent type='PERSON'>Dan Schechter</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Ansara</ent>, and <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Kolodney, "The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> as an
<ent type='ORG'>Equal Opportunity Employer</ent>," <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent>, June 1969, pp. 25-33.
Reprinted with an introduction in <ent type='PERSON'>Ellen Ray</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>William Schaap</ent>, Karl
van Meter, and <ent type='PERSON'>Louis Wolf</ent>, eds., Dirty Work 2: The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Africa</ent>
(<ent type='GPE'>Secaucus</ent> NJ: <ent type='PERSON'>Lyle Stuart</ent>, 1979), pp. 50-69.</p>

<p> 3. <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent></ent>, "Multiculturalism's Silent Partner: It's the newly
globalized consumer economy, stupid." Harper's, August 1993,
pp. 62-72.</p>

<p> 4. Sigmund <ent type='PERSON'>Diamond</ent>, Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of
Universities with <ent type='ORG'>the Intelligence Community</ent>, 1945-1955 (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>:
<ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent> University Press, 1992), 371 pages; <ent type='PERSON'>David Horowitz</ent>, "<ent type='PERSON'>Sinews</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>Empire</ent>," <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent>, October 1969, pp. 32-42.</p>

<p> 5. Sara <ent type='PERSON'>Diamond</ent>, "The Funding of the <ent type='ORG'>NAS</ent>." In <ent type='PERSON'>Patricia Aufderheide</ent>, 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.</p>

<p> 6. Compare Sigmund Diamond's discussion of <ent type='ORG'>the Reece Committee</ent> in
Compromised Campus and <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Robertson</ent>'s discussion of same in The New
World Order (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991).</p>

<p> 7. I'm indebted to <ent type='PERSON'>Ace Hayes</ent> for this sentence.</p>

<p> 8. <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Ransom, "<ent type='ORG'>Ford</ent> Country: Building an Elite for <ent type='GPE'>Indonesia</ent>." In
<ent type='PERSON'>Steve Weissman</ent>, ed., The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid
(<ent type='GPE'>Palo Alto</ent> CA: <ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent> Press, 1975), pp. 93-116.</p>

<p> 9. <ent type='PERSON'>Kathleen Teltsch</ent>, "Adviser Helping <ent type='PERSON'>the Rich Discover Worthy</ent> Causes,"
<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> Times, 14 October 1984, p. 50.</p>

<p>10. Who's Who in <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>, 1984-1985 (<ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>Marquis Who</ent>'s Who, 1984).</p>

<p>11. <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel</ent> Patrick Moynihan, "Deficit by Default" (14th edition of an
annual series beginning with Fiscal Year 1976), July 31, 1990,
pp. xiv - xvii.</p>

<p>12. <ent type='ORG'>Rieff</ent>, p. 63.</p>

<p>13. <ent type='PERSON'>Ibid</ent>., p. 66.</p>

<p>14. <ent type='PERSON'>Pat Aufderheide</ent>, ed., Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding
(Saint Paul MN: Graywolf Press, 1992), p. 232.</p>

<p>15. <ent type='PERSON'>Ralph</ent> Z. Hallow, "<ent type='ORG'>Christian Coalition</ent> to Court Minorities: Blacks,
<ent type='NORP'>Hispanics</ent> Back Key Stands," <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Times, 10 September 1993,
p. A5.</p>

<p>16. George F. Will, "Literary Politics." In <ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>, ed., p. 24.</p>

<p>17. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics (<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>:
1985), p. 435, Table 132.</p>

<p>18. <ent type='PERSON'>Carol Innerst</ent>, "America's Illiterates Increasing: Survey Disputes
U.S. Self-Image," <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Times, 9 September 1993, p. A1, A10.</p>

<p>19. C. <ent type='PERSON'>Vann Woodward</ent>, "Freedom and the Universities." In <ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>,
ed., p. 32.</p>

<p>20. Janet Naylor, "'Potential Rapists' Flier Stirs UMd. <ent type='ORG'>Flap</ent>," <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
Times, 7 May 1993, p. A1, A7.</p>

<p>21. <ent type='PERSON'>Carol Innerst</ent>, "The <ent type='GPE'>Hackney Hubbub</ent>: PC Debate at <ent type='ORG'>Penn</ent> Trails
Clinton's Pick for <ent type='ORG'>NEH</ent>," <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Times, 14 June 1993, p. D1, D2.</p>

<p>22. National Association of Scholars, "The Wrong Way to Reduce Campus
Tensions." In <ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>, ed., pp. 7-10.</p>

<p>23. <ent type='PERSON'>Barbara Epstein</ent>, "<ent type='ORG'>Political Correctness and Identity Politics</ent>." In
<ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>, ed., pp. 148-54.</p>

<p>24. <ent type='PERSON'>Todd Gitlin</ent>, "On the Virtues of a Loose Canon." In <ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>, ed.,
pp. 185-90.</p>

<p>25. Karen <ent type='PERSON'>Lehrman</ent>, "Off Course," <ent type='ORG'>Mother Jones</ent>, September-October 1993,
pp. 45-51, 64, 66, 68.</p>

<p>26. <ent type='PERSON'>Shalala</ent> is quoted in Dinesh D'<ent type='PERSON'>Souza</ent>, Illiberal Education: The
Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (<ent type='ORG'>New York</ent>: Vintage Books, 1992),
p. 13.</p>

<p>27. National Association of Scholars, p. 9.</p>

<p>28. <ent type='PERSON'>Lehrman</ent>, pp. 64, 66, 68.</p>

<p>29. <ent type='PERSON'>Ibid</ent>., p. 66.</p>

<p>30. <ent type='PERSON'>Mortimer</ent> J. Adler, "Multiculturalism, Transculturalism, and the Great
Books." In <ent type='PERSON'>Aufderheide</ent>, ed., pp. 59-64.</p>

<p>31. <ent type='PERSON'>Shalala</ent> is quoted in D'<ent type='PERSON'>Souza</ent>, p. 16.</p>

<p>\\\\\<special>jhdaugh@a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com</special>\\\\\\\*////////&lt;info@a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com///////////
<ent type='PERSON'>James Daugherty</ent>, volunteer <ent type='PERSON'>Postmaster</ent> for A-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent> Research (<ent type='ORG'>POB</ent> 20273,
<ent type='GPE'>Ferndale</ent>, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists &amp; E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, &amp; resources.
**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******
e-mail: majordomo@mail.msen.com | <special>http://gopher.a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com:9006/</special>
message: info prj | <special>ftp://ftp.a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com/</special>
get prj gopher/keytogopher | <special>gopher.a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com 9006</special>
////////////////////////////////////*\\\\\\\\\\\<special>ftp.a-<ent type='NORP'>albionic</ent>.com</special>\\\\\\\\</p>

</xml>