cj#734> re: “Who is the enemy? How do we fight them?”


Richard Moore

An activ-l reader responded:

>I am printing all your posts. They are very important to me and a
>study/then act group I am forming.
>I am also a member of a law study group--which it trying to re-establish
>sovereign vs slave status through the courts/instead of the 'District of
>Columbia Corporation' courts which are in place in us--displacing the
>'in law' sovereign system we would have--if Executive Branch of the
>government would rescind the 'state of emergency' congress placed the us
>in in 1860/ and 1933 'War Powers Act'.  Are you familiar with this?

Dear xxx,

I'm glad the posting hit a useful chord with you.  It was aimed at
"conservatives", and endeavors to help break down the
ideological/propaganda barrier that separates "liberals" and

But my more fundamental point is that factionalism in general is keeping us
divided and conquered.  Some people take the environment as a cause, others
gun laws, others women's rights, and your study group has the cause of,
shall we say, citizenship rights.

Every one of these causes is worthwhile in itself, but the net effect
politically is that we are running around like ants while the BIG MONEY
steadily and deliberately implements its New World Order.

Only united citizen action -- not an array of special causes -- can be
effective in forcing political change.  This is part of what I meant by a
"revolution of a new and different kind".  In my conclusion I called for a
"large-scale pro-sovereignty solidarity movement" and I claim "since we
will be (take hope!) a MAJORITY movement it is open political organizing we

I urge leading activists to lift their attention from their special causes,
and to put their energies instead into building coalitions among existing
movements.  The leadership of the various movements need to become aware of
the bigger political perpective, and to make their constituencies aware as
well.  Together we may not hang, separately we surely will.

Movements need to seek common agendas and unite their constituencies into
significant voting blocks behind consensus platforms.  If this can be made
to happen in a few cases, then others will pick up on it and the
psychological momentum could turn around the sense of helplessness that has
overcome so many of us.  And history shows that a glimmer of real hope can
mobilize even the silent majority to assert themselves.


BTW> Here's an example of a group which seems to be persuing just this kind
of activism -- and on somewhat of a global basis:


               THE UNFREE TRADE TOUR
  Building WORLDWIDE Resistance to Corporate Greed
                 Sunday, November 16
     5:30 pm @ Light Street Presbyterian Church
 809 Light Street, ( 3 blocks South of Harbor Place )
                    Baltimore Md.

This event will include a presentation by Kieth McHenry, and 3 Spanish
anarchists who have been organizing against the Masstricht treaty and
the unemployment and poverty caused by the globalization of the
economy. The activists are from Association BALADRE, an Iberian
Peninsula-wide organization which coordinates actions against poverty
and social exclusion. The video "50 Years is Enough" which details
struggles against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
will be shown. Seth, from the LA band GARBLECRAT, will provide

The Tour has already visited 20 cities in Canada and the United States.
Don't miss the Baltimore Stop.


Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997
From: yyy
Subject: Re: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?

[with some editing]

> Prior to 1945 there was a close bond between
> a nation and its industries and the two were generally counted as one in
> calculating the strength and wealth of nations....  The people,
> corporations, and the nation -- their interests were in fundamental
> harmony.

Hmm.  I'm not sure Joe Hill would agree.  Or the Wobblies, or the Ford
workers who got shot down by Bennett's goons, or the children who formed
such a large part of the factory work force.  First World?  Third World?
The First World  _was_  a Third World, not so long ago.

> But in the postwar "Free-World" system, the close-bonding between nations
> and "their" corporations has been falling apart.  As long as the stability
> of the overall world system is not in danger, TNC's don't give a damn about
> the national strength and prosperity of their individual home nations.

Corporations have never given a damn about anything but their bottom
lines.  In fact, Richard, corporations are constitutionally incapable of
giving a damn.  Corporations are devoid of emotion, because they are not
living creatures (whatever the law may say).  They are automata.
As for the people who temporarily and partially control them,
their allegiances are probably about what their predecessors' were:
family first, business second, nation third.

I agree with most of your vision of the future.  But I think you don rosy
goggles when you view the past.  The continuity between them is greater
than you think.


Dear yyy,

Your comments indicate that certain elaborations are advisable in the
argument, but they in no way change the thesis or conclusions of the piece.
Yours are the kind of rebuttals that I value most -- they directly improve
my presentation.

For example, after making the point that nations, corporations, and people
had a certain harmony of interests, I'll add something like:

        "Within this fundamental harmony -- the common agenda of a strong
and healthy nation -- there were certainly conflicts between capital and
labor, and business tried to minimize its contribution to the commonweal
(ie, taxes) -- but First-World countries were generally sounder than
Third-World ones, and the people were considerably better off."

As regards corporate allegiance, I need to clarify.  I didn't mean to imply
corporations were ever overtly patriotic -- but there _was_ a corporate
desire for its home nation to have a credible war-making capability (at
least in the major powers), and to be able to afford a sphere-of-influence,
and business leaders were pro-nationalist for this reason.  It wasn't that
long ago that nationalism (not just military, but a "strong America" in
general) was as much the "consensus view" as globalization and downsizing
are now.

>PS   I also wonder about your reference to Jim Jones and CIA conspiracy.
>     Have you evidence for that?

Yes there's been evidence, I imagine someone's written a book about it.
Off the top of my head, there was (1) the location (Guyana) which was
reportedly a place the CIA was using as a kind of safe-country for various
operations, (2) between the time authorities first reached the "suicide"
site, and a few days later, bodies had reportedly been gathered from the
surrounding jungle and piled up to appear as if they had died in the
compound, (3) when People's Temple was in Berkeley, and police had wanted
to take action against some of their illegal activites, federal agents
reportedly intervened and said to leave them alone, (4) there were
lieutenants of Rev Jones -- guys with automatic rifles -- who reportedly
killed Jones, forced holdouts to take their kool-aid, and then disappeared,
(5) if the Temple was merely a cult, why would they have needed to kill
Congressman Ryan and launch their suicide?  .. why didn't they hold out for
a while like Waco?...  but if Ryan had blown an intelligence cover, then it
would obviously have been "clean up time".

I do look for this kind of evidence, and it is important, but the focus of
my analysis re/cults and conspiracies is to identify the patterns in (1)
the events, (2) the mass-media treatments, and (3) the political

There was an CIA operation called "Operation Mind Control" that was kept
secret in the sixties but was eventually admitted and even put on TV, along
with assurances that the program was now over.  That operation employed LSD
and other one-person-at-a-time techniques.

It was soon after these revelations that we started to have this phenomenon
of cults that went along for years and then suddenly went up in flames, and
with considerable strangeness surrounding the events and the police

My most-likely scenario, based on overall evidence, is that cult-leaders
are being identified early in their leadership cycle, given encourgement to
move in certain directions, and to gather followers.  The leader need not
be aware of the ultimate source of support, that could be indirect.

The purpose is to study group mind-control in laboratory conditions -- How
far can you push people?  How throughly can you brainwash them?  What
leadership and conditioning techniques work best?  What kind of propaganda
and ideologies are most persuasive?  How can results be speeded up?  How
can they be applied on a society-wide basis?

Naturally such operations accumulate embarrasing evidence, especially among
the cult members themselves.  Interviews with Waco members, if they had
survived in large numbers, might have led to damaging evidence being
uncovered.  Mass execution, by one means or another, is the only way to
really clean up such an operation when termination becomes advisable.

There can be no doubt that the feds were aware of what was going on in
Waco.  Heaven knows they spoke with intimate authority about it during and
after the seige.  With their knowledge and informants the seige was
absolutely unnecessary.  Koresh could have been arrested when he was out
jogging or in any number of other less violent ways.  They want us to
believe they bungled into the utlimate situation -- but that's an excuse
that I've found always bears deeper examination.

When I look at the Christian right, or the militias, or Muslim
fundamentalism, or any number of other cult-like movements, I see "cult
technology in action" -- cult technology developed partly in laboratory
experiments.  Cult promulgation is an effective means of mind-control and
of political control.  In simpler times, the state religion was used in
this way -- and we all know of the symbiosis between Christanity and the
Roman Empire after Constantine.  We may be reaching the point where
"cultification" is becoming the dominant population-control methodolgy in
preference to the old mass-media approach of trying to apply mind-control
propaganda to the whole population at once.

Hitler is an example of a cult leader who was noticed early in his career,
was put under the tutelage of Ernst Rhoem (a military intelligence agent),
was supported by covert funds from Euroean and American industrialists, was
given favorable press-treatment in the West, and was encouraged to spread
his cult Germany-wide in order to build a powerful force against
socialism/communism.  When the operation got out of hand, the media praise
turned to (deserved) demonization, and the fire was applied to Germany.



Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• -  PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
         www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal                   (USA Citizen)
  * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *

To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        unsub cyberjournal