cj#742> cj re: Who is the enemy? How do we fight them?


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

Before we look at the comments of Bob and his list members, I'll show you
those from cj readers.


Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997
Sender: Nisan Chavkin <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?

The MOVE fire bombing took place in Philadelphia, not Chicago.

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997
Sender: •••@••.••• (Joshua2)
Subject: Re: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?

Very nice piece Richard.

I will only take issue with a few points.


  See the Website:
  Uderstanding the New World Order--

  > I think this sums it up pretty well.  The agenda of BIG MONEY is neither
  > liberal nor conservative, it is corporate.  And the political battle of the
  > day is not between liberals and conservatives, it is between corporations
  > and the people.

It is the nature of the human brain to catagorize. In the name of
accuracy and clarity I strongly urge you and others to understand that the
Corporation itself is NOT the correct focal point. It is the OWNERS of the
corporations that are the problem. Described in class terms, it is the
SUPER-RICH who are the engineers of the New World Order. Corporations are
the tools for building the weapon. That weapon is huge amounts of excess

  rkm: I agree corporations are the tools of the elite.  I'd say we need to
  overthrow the power of the elite, and much of that will be accomplished by
  reform of corporations.  Both the tools and the owners are oppressive.

" the very concept of "home nation" is out-dated -- "
This is a myth. While it is true that all flags are flags of
convenience, it is still essential for a corporation to be tied to a nation
state.  One that it can control is good, but one that is powerful and
controlable is even better. If this were not the case, then all
corporations would be  chartered in Boingo-Boingo. The reasons are simple -

1) The State provides a military to protect and project Rich/Corporate

2) An intelligence service to provide intelligence, and destabilize
regimes unfriendly to Rich/Corporate interests.

3) And a tax base for use as a private slush fund for the Rich ( for
bailouts ) when their wild speculations fail. Part of this slush fund is
donated to NWO agencies like the IMF, and World Bank for the same reasons.

  rkm: Here you miss the most important point of globalization: the dramatic
  shift in importance of the nation state.  Japan, one of the most successful
  postwar nations, has very little in the way of military or intelligence
  services.  As long as the Pentagon and NATO maintain their global hegemony,
  then corporations everywhere have their investments protected.  And these
  forces are hi-tech intensive: they don't need massive popular armies to
  maintain control.  I predict that all nations will be compelled to subsidize
  the Elite Global Force, reducing the unique current importance of the US and
  the EU.  Your analysis of the importance of the state to corporations held
  up until 1945 only.

  > We must all join together or we
  > won't have the strength to challenge the TNC's and the divisive mass-media
  > propaganda.  And since we will be (take hope!) a MAJORITY movement it is
  > open political organizing we need, not clandestine guerilla groups.  We
  > need to take the high ground on main street and force democracy on
  > Washington DC, not skulk in the hills.

It will probably require both. But it is immoral to pick up the gun
without exhausting other possibilities first. Martin King's movement in
the 60's was not that effective until the threat of a violent black revolution
led by the likes of the Black Panthers made it more desirable.

  rkm: violent revolution is simply not feasible.  Not only would one be
  facing a ferocious "Domestic Storm" repression, but the societal chaos
  caused in our complex societies would be unacceptable (mass starvation,

  Your reading of civil-rights history is dead wrong.  King's non-
  violent organizing gets the credit for whatever progress was made.  And
  the Panther's weren't advocating violent revolution; they were advocating
  that people protect themselves from police repression in their communities.

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997
Sender: •••@••.••• (Jay Michlin)
Subject: Re: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?


You have *got* to be kidding, right? I can't bring myself to accept that
you really believe this stuff. For example:

  >It is time for "liberals" and "conservatives" to wake up to the fact that
  >they BOTH share the same primary goals: restoring the Constitution,
  >reasserting national sovereignty, rebuilding the economy, and ending the
  >special-interest influence that has gotten us into this mess.

The Constitution remains strong. Yes, it is under constant attack, as it
has always been. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, right? Seems to
me that the attacks today come equally from the religious right and the
nanny left, each seeking to enlarge the role of government. I don't see
anyone attacking the Constitution in an attempt to enlarge the role of

As to national sovereignty, it is hardly threatened by corporations.
Countries all over the world legislate substantial restrictions on what
companies can do. In Japan you have to buy Japanese. In France you have to
speak French. In Brazil you have to manufacture Brazilian. And ultimately
all pay the price because no government can change the laws of physics,
economics or human nature. Your problem with corporations is that they play
the game according to those laws. Or at least some corporations do, and the
rest fade away. If you don't like those laws, you have a big problem

Rebuilding the economy? It's at an all time high in the US. Sure,
distribution is not egalitarian and the high incomes of some at the top are
annoying. But more people have more wealth than anywhere, any time. And
it's hardly because of government programs.

And finally, to the special-interest influence. You're 100% right there.
But special interests include the medical lobby, the teachers' lobby, the
labor lobby and the environmental lobby as well as industrials and
corporations. You're right that special interests have an undue influence.
But that's because the government has bestowed on itself the power to grant
undue favors. I'd rather these lobbies fight it out among themselves in the
economy than under the stilted and dishonest rules of campaign

Yes, the US political system is in need of improvement, and this is not the
first time. It has shown a remarkable ability to transform and renew itself
over the centuries, most recently after the Watergate trauma. It is one of
the few -- and perhaps the only -- system with this quality. The renewal is
painful,  messy and slow, but it happens nonetheless. It happens precisely
because we *limit* central government, often to extraordinary extents. That
is the genius of the Constitution.

If you have something better to offer, I have yet to discern it.



No Jay, the Constitution does not remain strong.  The Bill of Rights have
been drastically and systematically undermined by exploitation of the
issues of crime, drugs, and terrorism.  And sovereignty itelf -- the very
essence of constitutional nation-hood -- is being sold out by the
bi-partisan traitors in Washington.  This is not a cyclical phenomenon; it
is a unique historical event, and not easily reversed.

You comment that sovereignty is "is hardly threatened by corporations" is
preposterous.  It isn't simply "corporations", as Joshua2 pointed out, it's
the economic elite, the unregulated and volatile international financial
system, the globalist bureaucracy (WTO, IMF, et al), _and_ the corporate

You can see the loss of sovereignty in an extreme form in the Third World,
where increasingly the IMF dictates micro-economic policy to debtor
nations.  The effects aren't as grotesque yet in the First World, but
considerable sovereign rights have already been signed away by GATT and
it's only a matter of time before the globalist rule-setting gets into high
gear.  We have already seen US and European policies reversed by the the
WTO in a few cases, including: (1) EU was forced to import US hormone-fed
beef; (2) the EU was barred from subsidizing bannana growers in the

Given your belief in laissez-faire economics (which you call the "laws of
phyisics"), you probably applaud an ending of subsidies, but that's not the
point: the point is that constitutional governments no longer have the
sovereignty to make their own decisions.  I suggest you read William
Greider's "One World Ready or Not" and Martin & Schumann's "The Global
Trap" to get an update on what's happened with sovereignty since about

As for the laws of physics, free-market economics, etc., it's all a sham
theory, sold to justify corporate domination.  What such policies have
always led to, and where they are heading this time as well, is to the
formation of huge monopolies and to economic instability.  We've been
through all this before, and decades of regulatory reform were required to
undo the abuses and achieve stability.  All that history has simply
vanished from media-defined reality, in true Orwellian style.

  >But more people have more wealth than anywhere, any time. And
  >it's hardly because of government programs.

Real wages are declining; poverty is increasing; systematic unemployment is
a conscious government objective; what prosperity there is doesn't have a
stable base.  As for "government programs", do you have any idea how
important the GI Bill and the Marshall Plan were in building postwar
prosperity?   We've all benefitted from numerous government programs.
Internet was the result of a government program.  Your "physics aware"
corporations are happy to exploit inventions, but they let the government
pay for most of the research.

There is no renewal likely from the current crisis: globalization is a
one-way street.  Any nation that tries to re-declare its sovereignty, after
globalism is firmly in power, would be treated the way the Confederacy was
when it sought to exit from what it _thought_ had been a voluntary union.

The limits on government power have been largely removed.  Besides all the
erosion of the Bill of Rights (see cj#738), there are all the EXECUTIVE
ORDERS which are in effect (cj#686), making martial law deployable at a
moment's notice.

I can see the consistency in your world view, but you pay the price of
ignoring most of reality.


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997
Sender: Bill Michtom <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?

I have multiple problems with the interpretations in this letter, as
well as areas of agreement. I will comment as they "come up."

Richard K. Moore wrote:
  > >From reading Truth In Media, and from many other current publications as
  > well, I often get the impression that "liberals", especially as represented
  > by Clinton,

This is the first problem. Clinton is not a liberal in the USA sense of
the word. He is in the service of private enterprise not, as US liberals
are supposed to be, the mass of the population. Thirty years ago,
Clinton's politics would have put him no farther to the left than a
Rockefeller Republican. And he would have been recognized as such.

  rkm: Agreed, which is why the world "liberals" above is in quotes.

  > It is time for "liberals" and "conservatives" to wake up to the fact that
  > they BOTH share the same primary goals: restoring the Constitution,
  > reasserting national sovereignty, rebuilding the economy, and ending the
  > special-interest influence that has gotten us into this mess.

1) Unless you consider rebuilding the economy the redistribution of
wealth down instead of up, there is no rebuilding to be done. The
economy has been booming - for the wealthy - for years.

  rkm: The economy is sick.  Not even government is adquately funded, nor
  schools; there is too much unemployment and poverty; corporations and
  the wealthy are not paying nearly enough tax; the medical industry is
  run in a counter-productive way: all of these I consider part of rebuilding
  the economy.  The first step, of course, is to extract ourselves from the
  sovereignty-destroying "free trade" treaties and to effectively regulate
  foreign-currency transactions.

2) National sovereignty has never truly been a goal of those in power.
It is a sidelight - if the USA is on top, that is nice - and a way to
keep the population going along with a corporate agenda - it's for the
good, old USA.

  rkm: Before 1945 the strong nation state was the power-base of coporations;
  afterwards that changed; this all by itself represents a cataclysmic shift
  in fundamental power relationships in the world system.

3) "Conservatives" are very much the people who have pushed this agenda
- at least since the advent of Reagan. The major change I've seen over
the last two decades - from Carter on - is the end of any pretense of a
party representing - at any level - the interests of the non-wealthy.

4) Special interests are the same people who encouraged state
governments to bring in the National Guard to shoot down strikers around
the turn of the century, who hired the Pinkertons to do the same more
privately, who brought us the Teapot Dome Scandal of the '20s, the
attacks on the Cubans since the 60s, and the S&L debacle of recent

  > Liberals and
  > conservatives are NOT enemies -- and they need to rise above their
  > differences and work together for their common survival.

This, unfortunately, I would agree with. Liberals, "especially as
represented by Clinton," are indeed not enemies of the conservatives.
Clinton fought *hard* for GATT and NAFTA. This was done *with* the
support of the corporations and against the best interests of
working/middle class USA. He did not even *attempt* to fight for a
single-payer health plan, just some grotesque version of the
privately-run disaster we already have.

  > They're using the age-old strategy of tyrants: divide and conquer.
I certainly agree with you here.

  > [T]he political battle of the day is not between liberals and
  > conservatives, it is between corporations and the people.
  > This was not always the case.  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.  The Third-World may have been exploited, but at least the First
  > World was relatively sound.

This strikes me as ahistorical. What "close bond" existed between the
corporations and the people during the Depression? Were banks *not*
foreclosing on small farmers?  Who truly took the brunt of the Crash -
the mass of the population or the Rockefellers, et al?
And how can you toss off the exploitation of the Third World as
something somehow peripheral to the "relative soundness" of the First
World? Without the Third World to exploit, there would be no First

  rkm: The close bond was between a "nation and its industries", not between
  "corporations and the people".  Strong industry meant a strong nation,
  which meant it could control an economic sphere of influence and defend
  its "interests".  There was a great deal of suffering, and I find as many
  faults as you do, but by and large First-World citizens were damn glad
  they were where they were, and not off in some bananna republic.  I was
  against elite domination then, and I'm against it now -- but at least
  in the strong nation state we have the legal right to change things; under
  globalism democracy is effectively discontinued.

  > Nations and industry can no longer be counted as a single entity

And looking back on who helped the Nazis before (and sometimes during)
WWII, they never have been. Profit is all.

  rkm: A valid point; also Krupp used to sell weapons to Germany's enemies,
  forcing Germany to upgrade repeatedly.  There was no doctrinaire loyalty,
  but still WW II was primarily a test of the industrial mights of the
  various parties.

  > This power grab by TNC's -- and the transfer of sovereignty to their
  > centralized bureaucracy -- is what GLOBALIZATION is all about.

Again, there has been no power grab, merely a continuation of an
on-going process.

  rkm: I disagree.  Before 1945, elite power was exercised by dominating
  the national political process -- and there was considerable political
  give and take.  Under globalism, elite domination is being permanently
  built in; this is a radical transformation, not a continuation of the
  old process.

  > It amounts to the replacement of democracy by a modern corporate variety of
  > feudalism.

This is confusing a political system with an economic one. One of the
major victories of the folks in power is the conflating of capitalism
and democracy. They are not only not the same, they are in conflict.

  rkm: Right, capitalism and democracy are not the same.  As for confusing
  political and economic systems, that's my main point about globalization:
  it is primarily a political revolution, while the media-official party line
  calls it only an economic program.

  > It has always been corporations . . . that carried out the
  > imperialist exploitation, not nations themselves.  The nations simply
  > provided a free security service.

I see this, too, as somewhat ahistorical. The Dutch East India and the
Hudson's Bay Companies were *licensed* by the Dutch and the English,
respectively, to carry out the imperialist aims of the home countries.
And the security service the countries provided was not "simple" at all.
The US military, for example, spent major portions of the 19th and 20th
centuries occupying large portions of Central and South America. The US
created Panama so that they wouldn't have to deal with the Columbians
who, up until the US intervention, "owned" the isthmus.

  rkm: One can look at these events from various perspectives.  The way I
  see it is that private investors sought profit in imperialism, and
  governments supported them in various ways.  Many of the American
  colonies (eg, Pennsylvania) were privately owned corporations.  You might
  say governments and investors were partners in imperialism, but the
  investor profit-potential was the engine driving the whole affair.  A good
  read is Buckmininster Fuller's "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth"

  > As in
  > the Third-World today, the major role of all governments will be to
  > maintain public order and to seek to be "competitive" in attracting
  > corporate favors.  What this means is police-state governments and no
  > worker's or consumers rights (and no Constitutional rights).

This, too, has always been true (see the National Guard comment above).
The difference, once again, is the evolution of capitalism which will
require a more visible and more frequent military presence in the
service of control.

  rkm: You can take a purist position, and say government's are always
  repressive.  But globalism is a revolutionary change, not an evolutionary
  one, and if you miss such distinctions you'll mis-judge current political

  > The only problem the TNC's still need to solve is how to arrange for
  >"security services" as First-World nations are weakened and
  > disenfranchised.  My guess is that they will create yet another
  > TNC-dominated bureaucracy -- perhaps to be called the World Peace
  > Organization (WPO) -- which will somehow be given control over NATO and
  > Pentagon hi-tech (low manpower) weaponry.

What is the expansion of NATO but this very idea already being
implemented. Who is "protected" by NATO other than the arms
manufacturers who provide the materiel for NATO at a huge cost to our
and other nations' budgets. The US is already in service to the military
manufacturers at a level that is greater than all other industrialized
countries combined.

  rkm: I agree that NATO, in cooperation with the Pentagon, is already the
  beginning of an official global force; but I imagine its structure will
  be eventually "rationalized", ie, internationalized, in some diabolical way.

  Yes, arms manufacturers are beneficiaries and eager lobbyists for militarism,
  but I don't see them as being the prime movers of geopolitical affairs.
  First comes the political agenda: maintenance of a stable global investment
  realm; second comes the military strategy: maintenance of low-grade
  level of instabilty, justifying a hi-tech US+NATO force, which ultimately
  delivers the desired stability; only third does the economics and politics
  of the arms industry come into play.

  > We need a revolution of a new and different kind, a revolution that
  > responds to this unprecedented state of emergency.

Though unprecendented, it is not unforeseen. Marx called it over 100
years ago.

  rkm: Those with that fortunate insight seem to have not been acting on it.

And the way to fight it is indeed to bring the many together to fight
the few. That requires, however, a different understanding of the
problem than I think, Richard, you are offering here. It also will not
find allies among the "conservatives."

  rkm:  What we need is a correct understanding, which I'm constantly
  striving for, in dialog with others.  I challenge you to respond with
  arguments that take into account current reality.  As for allies, several
  of my articles have been received very favorably on conservative lists
  and print publications.  Recently, I've gotten intentionally provocative
  with them in order to open up a dialog (same as here.)

I do agree that many of those who find comfort in the milita movement
are the natural allies of the people who some identify as liberals. But
those who are liberals in the sense of Clinton or Carter or almost any
of the Democrats of today are part of the problem, not part of the

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997
Sender: •••@••.••• (Joe Ferguson)
Subject: Re: cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?

Hi Richard,


- Joe Ferguson


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