Francis Parker Yockey - The Nature Of Politics

The Nature Of Politics Francis Parker Yockey

First, what is politics? That is, politics as a fact. Politics is activity in relation to power.Politics is a domain of its own—the domain of power. Thus it is not morality, it is not esthetics, it is not economics. Politics is a way of thinking, just as these others are. Each of these forms of thought isolates part of the totality of the world and claims it for its own. Morality distinguishes between good and evil, esthetics between beautiful andugly; economics between utile and inutile (in its later purely trading phase these are identical with profitable and unprofitable). The way politics divides the world is into friend and enemy. These express for it the highest possible degree of connection, and the highest possible degree of separation. Political thought is as separate from these other forms of thought as they are from each other. It can exist without them, they without it. The enemy can be good, he can be beautiful, he may be economically utile, business with him may be profitable—but if his power activity converges on mine, he is my enemy. He is that one with whom existential conflicts are possible. But esthetics, economics, morality are not concerned withexistence, but only with norms of activity and thinking within an assured existence. While as a matter of psychological fact, the enemy is easily represented as ugly, injurious, and evil, nevertheless this is subsidiary to politics, and does not destroy the independence of political thinking and activity. The political disjunction, concerned as it is with existence, is the deepest of all disjunctions and thus, has a tendency to seek every type of persuasion, compulsion, and justification in order to carry its activity forward. The extent to which this occurs is in direct ratio to the purity of political thinking in the leaders. The more their outlooks contain of moral, economic or other ways of thinking, the more they will use propaganda along such lines to further their political aims. It may even happen that they are not conscious that their activity is political. There is every indication that Cromwell regarded himself as a religionist and not as a politician. A variation was provided by the French journal which fanned the war spirit of its readers in 1870 with the expectation that the poilus would bring car-loads of blonde women back from Prussia. On the other side, Japanese propaganda for the home populace during the Second World War, accented almost entirely the existential i.e., purely political nature of the struggle. Another may be ugly, evil and injurious and yet not be an enemy; or he may be good, beautiful, and useful, and yet be an enemy. Friend and enemy are concrete realities. They are not figurative. They are unmixed with moral, esthetic or economic elements. They do not describe a private relationship of antipathy. Antipathy is no necessary part of the political disjunction of friend and enemy. Hatred is a private phenomenon. If politicians inoculate their populations with hatred against the enemy, it is only to give them a personal interest in the public struggle which they would otherwise not have. Between superpersonal organisms there is no hatred, although there may be existential struggles. The disjunction love-hatred is not political and does not intersect at any point the political one of friend-enemy. Alliance does not mean love, any more than war means hate. Clear thinking in the realm of politics demands at the outset a strong power of dissociation of ideas. The world-outlook of Liberalism, here as always completely emancipated from reality, said that the concept enemy described either an economic competitor, or else an ideational opponent. But in economics there are no enemies, but only competitors; in a world which was purely moralized (i.e., one in which only moral contrasts existed) there could be no enemies, but only ideational opponents. Liberalism, strengthened by the unique long peace, 1871-1914, pronounced politics to be atavistic, the grouping of friend-enemy to be retrograde. This of course belongs to politics—a branch of philosophy. In that realm no misstatement is possible; no accumulation of facts can prove a theory wrong, for over these theories are supreme, History is not the arbiter in matters of political outlook, Reason decides all, and everyone decides for himself what is reasonable. This is concerned however only withfacts, and the only objection made here to such an outlook in the last analysis is that it is not factual. Enemy, then, does not mean competitor. Nor does it mean opponent in general. Least of all does it describe a person whom one hates from feelings of personal antipathy. Latin possessed two words: hostis for the public enemy, inimicus for a private enemy. Our Western languages unfortunately do not make this important distinction. Greek however did possess it, and had further a deep distinction between two types of wars: those against other Greeks, and those against outsiders of the Culture, barbarians. The former were agons—and only the latter were true wars. An agon was originally a contest for a prize at the public games, and the opponent was the "antagonist." This distinction has value for us because in comparison with wars in this age, intra-European wars of the preceding 800 years were agonal. As nationalistic politics assumed the ascendancy within the Classical Culture, with the Peloponnesian Wars, the distinction passed out of Greek usage. 17th and 18th century wars in West-Europe were in the nature of contests for a prize—the prize being a strip of territory, a throne, a title. The participants were dynasties, not peoples. The idea of destroying the opposing dynasty was not present, and only in the exceptional case was there even the possibility of such a thing happening. Enemy in the political sense means thus public enemy. It is unlimited, and it is thus distinguished from private enmity. The distinction public-private can only arise when there is a super-personal unit present. When there is, it determines who is friend and enemy, and thus no private person can make such a determination. He may hate those who oppose him or who are distasteful to him, or who compete with him, but he may not treat them as enemies in the unlimited sense. The lack of two words to distinguish public and private enemy also has contributed to confusion in the interpretation of the well-known Biblical passage (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27) "Love your enemies." The Greek and Latin versions use the words referring to a private enemy. And this is indeed to what the passage refers. It is obviously an adjuration to put aside hatred and malice, but there is no necessity whatever that one hate the public enemy. Hatred is not contained in political thinking. Any hatred worked up against the public enemy is non-political, and always shows some weakness in the internal political situation. This Biblical passage does not adjure one to love the public enemy, and during the wars against Saracen and Turk no Pope, saint, or philosopher so construed it. It certainly does not counsel treason out of love for the public enemy. II Every non-political human grouping of whatever kind, legal, social, religious, economic or other becomes at last political if it creates an opposition deep enough to range men against one another as enemies. The State as a political unit excludes by its nature opposition of such types as these. If however a disjunction occurs in the population of a State which is so deep and strong that it divides them into friends and enemies, it shows that the State, at least temporarily, does not exist in fact. It is no longer a political unit, since all political decisions are no longer concentrated in it. All States whatever keep a monopoly ofpolitical decision. This is another way of saying they maintain inner peace. If some group or idea becomes so strong that it can effect a friend-enemy grouping, it is a political unit; and if forces are generated which the State cannot manage peace-ably, it has disappeared for the time at least. If the State has to resort to force, this in itself shows that there are two political units, in other words, two States instead of the one originally there. This raises the question of the significance of internal politics. Within a State, we speak of social-politics, judicial-politics, religious-politics, party-politics and the like. Obviously they represent another meaning of the word, since they do not contain the possibility of a friend-enemy disjunction. They occur within a pacified unit. They can only be called "secondary." The essence of the State is that within its realm it excludes the possibility of a friend-enemy grouping. Thus conflicts occurring within a State are by their nature limited, whereas the truly political conflict is unlimited. Every one of these internal limited struggles of course may become the focus of a true political disjunction, if the idea opposing the State is strong enough, and the leaders of the State have lost their sureness. If it does—again, the State is gone. An organism either follows its own law, or it becomes ill. This is organic logic and governs all organisms, plant, animal, man) High Culture. They are either themselves, or they sicken and die. Not for them is the rational and logical view which says that whatever can be cogently written down into a system can then be foisted on to an organism. Rational thinking is merely one of the multifarious creations of organic life, and it cannot, being subsidiary, include the whole within its contemplation. It is limited and can only work in a certain way, and on material which is adapted to such treatment. The organism is the whole, however, and does not yield its secrets to a method which it develops out of its own adaptive ability to cope with non-organic problems it has to overcome. Secondary politics often can distort primary politics. For instance the female politics of petty jealousy and personal hatred that was effective in the court of Louis XV was instrumental in devoting much of French political energy to the less important struggle against Frederick, and little French political energy to the more important struggle against England in Canada and India and on the seas. Frederick the Great was not beloved by the Pompadour, and France paid an empire to chastise him. When private hostility exerts such an effect on public it is proper to speak of political distortion, and of such a policy as a distorted one. When an organism consults or is in the grip of any force outside of its own developmental law, its life is distorted. The relation between a private enmity and a public politics it is circumstanced to distort is the same as that between European petty-Statism and the Western Civilization. The collectively suicidal game of nationalistic politics distorted the whole destiny of the West after 1900 to the advantage of the extra-European forces. III The concrete nature of politics is shown by certain linguistic facts which appear in all Western languages. Invariably the concepts, ideas, and vocabulary of a political group are polemical, propagandistic. This is true throughout all higher history. The words State, class, King, society—all have their polemical content and they have an entirely different meaning to partisans from what they have to opponents. Dictatorship, government of laws, proletariat, bourgeoisie—these words have no meaning other than their polemical one, and one does not know what they are intended to convey unless one knows also who is using them and against whom. During the Second World War, for instance freedom and democracy were used as terms to describe all members of the coalition against Europe, with an entire disregard of semantics. The word "dictatorship" was used by the extra-European coalition to describe not only Europe, but any country which refused to join the coalition. Similarly, the word "fascist" was used purely as a term of abuse, without any descriptive basis whatever, just as the word "democracy" was a word of praise but not of description. In the American press, for example, both during the 1914 war and the 1939 war, Russia was always described as a "democracy." The House of Romanov and the Bolshevik regime were equally democratic. This was necessary to preserve the homogeneous picture of these wars which this press had painted for its readers: the war was one of democracy against dictatorship; Europe was dictatorship, ergo, anything fighting Europe was democracy. In the same way, Machiavelli described any State that was not a monarchy as a republic, a polemical definition that has remained to this day. To Jack Cade the word nobility was a term of damnation, to those who put down his rebellion, it was everything good. In a legal treatise, the class-warrior Karl Renner described rent paid by tenant to landlord as "tribute." In the same way, Ortega y Gasset calls the resurgence of State authority, of the ideas of order, hierarchy and discipline, a revolt of the masses. And to a real class warrior, any navvy is socially valuable, but an officer is a "parasite." During the period when Liberalism ruled in the Western Civilization, and the State was reduced, theoretically, to the role of "night-watchman," the very word "politics" changed its fundamental meaning. From having described the power activities of the State, it now described the efforts of private individuals and their organizations to secure positions in the government as a means of livelihood, in other words politics came to mean party-politics. Readers in 2050 will have difficulty in understanding these relationships, for the age of parties will be as forgotten then as the Opium War is now. All State organisms were distorted, sick, in crisis, and this introspection was one great symptom of it. Supposedly internal politics was primary.  If internal politics was actually primary, it must have meant that friend-enemy groupings could arise on an internal political question. If this did happen, in the extreme case civil war was result, but unless a civil war occurred, internal politics was still in fact secondary, limited, private, and not public. The very contention that inner politics was primary was polemical: what was meant was that it should be. The Liberals and class-warriors, then as now, spoke of their wishes and hope as facts, near-facts, or potential facts. The sole result of focusing energy onto inner problems was to weaken the State, in its dealings with other States. The law of every organism allows only two alternatives: either the organism must be true to itself, or it goes down into sickness or death. The nature, the essence of the State is inner peace and outer struggle. If the inner peace is disturbed or broken, the outer struggle is damaged. The organic and the inorganic ways of thinking do not intersect: ordinary classroom logic, the logic of philosophy textbooks, tells us that there is no reason why State, politics and war need even exist. There is no logical reason why humanity could not be organized as a society, or as a purely economic enterprise, or as a vast book club. But the higher organisms of States, and the highest organisms, the High Cultures, do not ask logicians for permission to exist—the very existence of this type of rationalist, the man emancipated from reality, is only a symptom of a crisis in the High Culture, and when the crisis passes, the rationalists pass away with it. The fact that the rationalists are not in touch with the invisible, organic forces of History is shown by their predictions of events. Before 1914, they universally asserted that a general European war was impossible. Two different types of rationalists gave their two different reasons. The class-warriors of the Internationale, said that inter-national class-war socialism would make it impossible to mobilize "the workers" of one country against "the workers" in another country. The other type—also with its center of gravity in economics, since rationalism and materialism are indissolubly wedded—said no general war was possible because mobilization would bring about such a dislocation of the economic life of the countries that a breakdown would come in a few weeks. Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (1948; Costa Mesa, CA: Noontide Press, 1962), 127-36.

Francis P. Yockey - THE DESTINY OF AMERICA

THE DESTINY OF AMERICA

by Francis P. Yockey

Published January 1955

The early American arrived at a land of which he knew nothing. He did not know its geography, its fertility, its climate, its dangers. In the North, he encountered forests, rocky soil, and winters of a rigor he had not known before. In the South, he met with swamps, malaria, and dense forests, Everywhere he encountered the hostile savage with his scalping knife and his warfare against women and children. In little groups, these early Americans cleared the forests, and built homes and forts. The men plowed the fields with rifles slung over their shoulders, and in the house, the wife went about her duties with a loaded weapon near at hand. There were ships to and from Europe, and the colonials could have left their hardships and gone back -- but they would not admit defeat.
Out of these colonials was bred the Minute Man. Minute Man! These American farmers were ready at a minute's notice to abandon the plow and seize the gun. They knew that the hour of their political independence was at hand and instinctively they prepared for it. When the moment arrived, with a British order to arrest two of their leaders, the Minute Men assembled before daybreak at Lexington to face the British force sent to seize them. Though heavily outnumbered they stood their ground in the face of Major Pitcairn's order to disperse. "If they mean to have a war," said Captain John Parker, leader of the Minute Men, "let it begin here!"
Begin it did, and for 8 long years it continued. Concord, Bunker Hill, Boston, Ticonderoga, Quebec, New York, Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains, Fort Lee, Fort Washington, Valley Forge, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, Stony Point, Savannah, Camden, The Cowpens, Yorktown -- these names recall at once the terrific odds against which the colonials fought, the low points to which their fortunes reached, and the silent and steadfast devotion of the troops. At Valley Forge, the men were but half-clad, and rations, when there was food issued at all, were slim. Sickness was rife, and mortality was high, Yet no one thought of surrender. General Washington said of them: "Naked and starving as they are we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of our soldiery."
No nation has produced individual soldiers to excel Nathaniel Greene, General Know, General Sullivan, John Stark, Nicholas Herkimer, Anthony Wayne, Daniel Morgan, John Paul Jones, nor greater patriots than John Dickinson, Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Rutledge. These are but a few. The spirit which animated these heroes is part of the white race, and it will last while this race lasts. It waits for its reawakening upon the coming of great events to American soil once more. When the fields of this continent are visited once again by the stern creativeness of war -- war for the independence and the liberation of the pristine American colonial spirit -- the world shall see that Americans are not the weak-willed, self-interested, pleasure-mad morons that Hollywood has tried so desperately to make them.
It was the individual imperialism of the frontiersman-type that actually opened up and conquered the North American continent. Explorers like George Rogers Clark and John Fremont preceded the frontiersman into the wilderness, and he followed into the hostile land with its lurking warlike savages. With slung rifle he took wife and children and all his earthly belongings into the land ahead, unknown, unsettled, unplowed. Daily he surmounted a thousand dangers, he lived in the face of Death. This intrepid type who was at once explorer, warrior, minister, doctor, judge, and settler, advanced until he reached the Pacific, and then he looked toward Alaska and the westward islands.
The tragic defeat of the Federalists by the less worthy among the post-Revolution generation made it possible for sectionalism to arise in America, and out of sectionalism issued the disastrous "War Between the States." That war proved only that the heroic type of American occurred everywhere in this broad land. The only lesson we can learn from the sacrifice is that big-mouthed agitators of the vicious stamp of Theodore Parker and Horace Greeley are capable of consigning nations to the flames in order to actualize their fantastic egalitarian theories.
During the conquest of the continent, small carping voices were continually raised against the heroic performance. Congressmen laughed at the idea of governing a region so far away as the distant Pacific coast. The Poets Lowell and Whittier and the agitators Garrison and Phillips did their best to bring about a sectional war during all of the 40's and 50's. Calhoun's attempt to annex Texas was defeated by the Congress. Small minds were against the Mexican War and the acquisition of the Southwest. They opposed the acquisition of Hawaii, of the Philippines, of the Cuban protectorate. After the War Between the States, this type of mind, represented by men like Summer and Stevens, wanted to treat the Southerners as an alien and inferior people and to gloat over them while placing the conqueror's foot on their necks.
This type of mentality still survives in America. Today it still fights against greatness and heroism. Today it teaches the doctrine of liberalism with its pacifism, its love for the inferior and misbegotten, its internationalism which makes a virtue of treason, its hatred of all who possess strong national feelings, its toothless desire for racial equality, and its tolerance of everything and everyone, particularly the alien and the unfit. Today this type of mind -- namely, all those to whom liberal doctrines appeal -- are working for the anti-American forces, whether consciously or not. The sub-Americans are in the service of America's inner enemy.
We have seen the spirit of the white race: the spirit of divine discontent and self-help, the spirit of self-reliance, of fearlessness in the face of great danger, the feeling of racial superiority, the urge to great distances and the will to conquer all that lies between, the spirit of the Alamo. To the true American, his is a living, organic, white nation, and not a set of principles, of "four freedoms" or a "world-policeman". Of this feeling was every great American: Washington, Hamilton, Henry Clay, Robert E. Lee, Sam Houston. The American soldier shows in every war that even today this true American type survives.
But today the true Americans, the former great leaders, have been displaced by Morganthaus, Ezekiels, Paswolskis, Cohens, Frankfurters, Goldsmiths, Lubins, Berles, Schenks, Edelsteins, Baruchs, Goldwyns, Mayers, Strausses, Lilienthals, Hillmans, Rosenmans, Lehmanns, Rosenbergs, Eisenhowers.
We know the true American and we know the liberal -- the sub-type within the white race. Let us now look at the third group which came here only yesterday and which today is linked with the liberals, the internationalists, the class-warriors, the subverters, of America's white, European traditions. This group makes use of American slogans and American ideas, but that cannot conceal its alien provenance. Let us measure the significance of the newcomers and examine their history.

THE HISTORY OF THE JEW
The culture which produced the Jewish nation arose in Asia Minor around 100 B.C. This culture produced many nations, all of them, so far as we are concerned, similar to the Jews. These "nations" were not nations at all in our sense of the word, for they had no homeland. Citizenship in this alien type of nation was gained by being a believer in the religion of the group. Jews, Marcionites, Gnostics, Mohammedans -- all these were nations, and to all of them membership in the nation was gained by being a believer. Intermarriage with non-believers was forbidden, and this inbreeding for two thousand years has made it possible today to pick out the Jew by his countenance. Thus, for the Jew, race and religion became identical, and if the Jew loses his religion, he loses little for he still remains a Jew by race. The unity of the race is not destroyed even though the great masses of the Jews become atheists.
After the dispersion of the Jews throughout Europe and Russia, they were entirely cut off from any contact with nations similar to themselves. They shut themselves up in the ghettoes of the cities and lived completely unto themselves. There they had their own religion, their own law, their own language, their own customs, their own diet, their own economy. Since they were nowhere at home, everywhere was equally home to them.
The early European nations felt the Jew to be as totally alien as he felt his surroundings to be. The Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, the Lombards, the Franks, all despised the usurious infidel. A popular rhyme of Gothic times portrays the three estates as the creation of God, and the usurious Jew as the creation of the Devil. Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land carried out wholesale massacres of Jews. Every European king at one time or another robbed the Jews and drove them from his domain. For 400 years the Jew was shut out from England. When he was allowed back, centuries more passed before he acquired or wanted civil rights of Englishmen. This persecution of the Jew that went on for 1,000 years took different forms -- robbery through forced fines, extortion, exile, massacre -- and it has had one determining, unchangeable result: it has reinforced in the Jew his original hatred for Christian civilization to the point where it is the sole content and meaning of his existence. This hatred is the breath of life to the Jew. He wants to tear down everything which surrounds him, every Western form of life, every Western idea. For a thousand years he cringed before the European master, who was so unassailable in his superiority. The figure of Shylock, drinking his gall and biding his time, taking his usury and saving the coins which represented to him the means of his liberation -- this is the symbolic figure of the Jew for a thousand years. This consuming hatred on the part of the Jew is one of the most important facts in the world today. The Jew is a world power. How did this come about?

THE RISE OF THE JEW TO POWER
It was the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America which enabled the Jew, from having been Shylock for a thousand years, the despised and cringing usurer, to become the type of the modern Jew, the cinema dictator, the tyrant of the inmost thoughts of 100,000,000 Americans. The Jew had been thinking in terms of economics and money for a thousand years before Europe and America began to develop a money civilization. Consequently when money stepped out as the supreme force, the Jew shot upward like a meteor. There was still a barrier however to his complete conquest of power. The heathen, the outsider, was still barred from civil rights. Of old he had not sought them, but now they were necessary if he was to conquer the master of yesterday. Nation after nation succumbed to the principles which the butchers of the French Revolution preached, and which the Jew took up and excitedly shouted over the world. A money civilization wants no aristocracy to stand in its way, so Money and Jew preached equality. Nor must there be any barriers to the employment of money, so the Jew preached liberty. He sought to lose his mark as outsider, for in his new role he wanted to be accepted as a member of whatever nation he might be among, so that he might conquer the power for his revenge. So he preached fraternity for others and the brotherhood of man.
But his "equality" meant only a new inequality -- the dictatorship of the Master of Money over the economic slave tied to his bench with a wage-chain. His "liberty" meant that the Jew was free to squeeze out the life-blood of nations through usury and financial dictatorship. The "brotherhood of man" -- that meant that the Jew was to be accepted as an equal -- but that he was to maintain his ancient unity and desire for revenge. Now the point has been reached where he steps out and asks for special privileges -- and gets them! Yesterday he denied aristocracy -- today he affirms it -- and he is the new aristocrat!! Did not Albert Einstein, before whom Americans are supposed to bow and scrape, write in Colliers Magazine an article entitled "Why the Jew is Superior"? And did not the white Americans afraid to think for himself any longer, read it and believe?
The Jew did not conceive nor organize modem industrialism. No more did he organize liberalism. But when these two things had become realities, he cleverly insinuated himself into the new social and economic fabric which arose, and he has now identified himself with the rapacious capitalism of the sweatshops and with the dishonest and revolting "democracy" of the type where Tweedledum opposed Tweedledee, and the Jew cares not which wins for he nominates them both.
There was a great danger to the Jew in this removal of all barriers between him and the host nations. This danger was assimilation of the great mass of Jews. If this were to occur, the Rothschilds, Baruchs, Frankfurters, Rosenmans, Guggenheims, Schiffs, Lehmanns, Cohens -- all these would be leaders without followers. They would lose their trustworthy followers who could penetrate everywhere and spread the influence of the Jew. One fruitful source of taxation would be gone. So the word "assimilated" became a term of contempt used by arch-Jews to describe other Jews who were losing their Jewish feelings and instincts. The Jew, with his two thousand years behind him, was faced with a perilous situation. No mere money manipulation could cope with this emergency. In this situation, the Jewish leaders invented Zionism.

ZIONISM AND THE PINNACLE OF JEWISH POWER
It was a political master-stroke on the part of the Jew to bring out the movement known as Zionism. Its ostensible aim was to seek a "national home" for the Jew, a plot of ground to which all Jews would theoretically return and there settle. Since the idea seemed to be to make the Jews into a nation like America, one with geographical boundaries, it seemed a praiseworthy movement to Americans. It seemed to promise the end of the Jews as the shifting sand dunes among nations, and to herald their establishment as a civilized nation. Hence unlimited Zionist activity and propaganda could be carried on among the Jews by their leaders, and no suspicion was aroused in the minds of the host nations.
But the real aim of Zionism was merely to save the Jew, wherever he was, from assimilation by the Western peoples, the European and American people. It enabled their leaders to unite the Jews firmly, to prevent assimilation by giving the Jews a political aim to follow. The spurious quality of the movement is shown by the fact that almost no Jews were moved to Palestine. A few only were moved, for commercial and political reasons and to conceal the Zionist fraud, but the millions remained in America and Europe. The real aim of Zionism -- to reaffirm and perpetuate the solidarity of the Jew -- has been successful. Zionism has become the official policy of the Jewish entity, and its ascendancy means, as far as the simple, ordinary Jew is concerned, that he is an utter slave in the hands of his leaders. It is probably superfluous to mention that no leading Zionist has gone from his position of power in white America back to Palestine. Nor need it be pointed out once more how few out of the millions of Jews driven from Europe have gone to Palestine. Almost to a man, they have come to America, their land of promise, the last base for their power, the last place for their revenge.
The invasion of Palestine, strategically important though it is, nevertheless stands in the shade of the vast invasion of America. During the short half century since Jewry adopted Zionism, some ten millions of Jews have been dumped on the shores of North America to displace Americans biologically and economically, to live parasitically on the American organism, to distort the social and spiritual life of the nation. The volume of the invasion has been such that even the slumbering, politically-unconscious white American has begun to blink his eyes and look around him in amazement, as he becomes gradually cognizant that his native land has passed into the possession of scheming, power-hungry, money-grubbing, total aliens.
The alien has his own press, in which he reveals those things which the democratic-liberal press dutifully conceals at the behest of the Jew. Pick up at random an issue of the "Contemporary Jewish Record" -- that for June 1941. On page 282 we are told how Jewish educators are combatting successfully "the un-American movement of 100% Americanism". On page 259 a member of the American Jewish Committee joyfully reports that because of the hostility between American and Jew the successive waves of Jewish immigrants "will develop into a cohesive American Jewish community". The article "The Jewish Emigrant -- 1941", describing the arrival of the Jew in America, says: "Our sole conclusion is that when the emigrant has finally arrived at his destination, he can consider himself at the entrance to Heaven". (sic).
Seven million of these immigrants have arrived at their "entrance to Heaven" since 1933. There is admitted hostility between them and their host-people. The Jew opposes 100% Americanism. Yet he calls his arrival here his "entrance to Heaven". How is this?

THE RISING INFLUENCE OF THE JEW IN AMERICA
The North American continent was discovered, explored, cleared, plowed and settled by the individual imperialism of members of the European-American white race. The political independence of America was won, and the industrial-technical system of the continent was planned and built by the white race. The American merchant marine was built and sent into the seven seas by white men. Every creative idea in whatever realm -- political, economic, technical, religious, legal, educational social -- that has been brought forth on this continent has originated with, and been developed by, members of the white European-American race. America belongs spiritually, and will always belong, to the Western Civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization, whether in Asia Minor, the Far East, or Africa.
And yet, even though the Jew was not present at Valley Forge, even though he was not at New Orleans in 1814, nor at the Alamo, nor at Bull Run or Chancellorsville, nor at Guantanamo Bay or Manila, even though he took no part in the conquest of the continent -- in spite of this complete dissociation of the Jew from the American past, it is a stark and gruesome fact that America today is ruled by the Jew. Where Americans hold office, they hold it at the pleasure of the Jews and use it in deference to his policy. Baruch argues with Roserman on the steps of the White House -- once the residence of Washington, Madison, Adams -- and the policy of America is thus determined. LaGuardia calls Lehmann by a Yiddish term of abuse in public. As lawyer, the Jew brings in excessive litigation; as judges he imports chicanery into the administration, and has the power to pronounce rules of law for Americans. A rabbi states: "The ideals of Judaism and the ideals of Americanism are one and the same," And the "Jewish Chronicle" (April 4, 1919) says: "The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism". The notorious rabbi Wise announces, "I have been an American for 67 years, but I have been a Jew for 6000 years". The "Jewish Chronicle" tells us: "The Jews in America are 100% Jewish and 100% American". These schizophrenic percentages resolve themselves into the thesis of the rabbis that Judaism, Trotskyist Bolshevism, and Americanism are one and the same. The synagogues have a parade of liberals -- sub-Americans with defective instincts -- come before them to parrot back at them their own view-point.
The Jew numbers approximately 10% of the North American populations but in the Second World War, a war fought solely for Jewish interests, a war of his fomenting, a war to increase his power, the conscripts in the American Army were only 2% Jewish, according to official records. Neither in his assumed role of American, nor in his actual status as member of the Jewish Culture-State-
Nation-Race-People, was he willing to risk his blood, even in his own war. In the fighting forces he limited his participation to the administrative branches: Judge Advocate, Medical, Quartermaster, Finance. In the American Army Jewish conscripts have an unconditional right to a furlough for Passover, for Yom Kippur, for Rosh Hashanah. The induction of Jews into the Army is delayed over Jewish holidays -- "to avoid undue hardship". The Central Conference of American Rabbis in the 47th annual convention in New York addressed a resolution to the American Congress asking that Jews be exempted from conscription "in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism"!
In the publicly supported educational institutions for higher learning, the Jew is driving out the native American student. In the free universities, such as Wayne University and City College of New York, the Jew's possession is complete. The Stock Exchange presents a similar picture. The New York Exchange is dormant on Jewish holidays. The Officers Reserve Corps is ever more penetrated by the Jews. The police forces of the large cities are under his control, and the Federal secret police enforce his bidding. He commands the National Guard in the populous states.
How has this come about? How has the native American been driven from the positions of representation, of power and respect in his own land? How has he been chased out of the professions, out of government, of the universities, out of the sources of public information? How did the interloper from Asia, the ghetto-creature from Kishnev, attain to his eminence whereupon he holds in his hands the decision of war or peace, and decides who are America's friends and who are America's enemies?
Two things are responsible for this situation in which America finds itself serving as a mere tool in the hands of an alien. First is Liberalism -- the enemy of national greatness, the virus that eats up national feelings. Liberalism is the doctrine that everyone is equal, everyone acceptable, the doctrine that the botched, the misbegotten are equal to the strong and the superior, that there are no foreigners and no distinctions. Liberalism gnaws away at the structure for which patriots and great leaders gave their lives and fortunes. To Liberalism, America is a "melting-pot", a dump heap for the world's human refuse. When the white race in Europe drives out the Jew, he goes to America where weak heads and inferiors who are jealous of that to which they are not equal have laid down for him the red carpet of Liberalism, and on this carpet, the Jew has advanced to supreme power in the short half a century since he first discovered that America is a fine host for an enterprising parasite. Liberalism is the inversion of that 100% Americanism which the Jew hates.
But mere Liberalism alone does not account for it. The second factor has been the aggressive unity of the Jew, his cohesiveness born of hate, which has welded him together and organized his forces for his mission of destruction. By virtue of the cohesiveness of the Jewish entity, at once Culture, State, Nation, People, Race, Religion, and Society, the Jew conquered the cinema industry, the news-gathering associations which controls all "news" and journalistic opinion, the periodical and book press, and the radio networks. When it became obvious the "Republican" party was about to lose the 1932 election, he cleverly insinuated himself into the "Democratic" party, and placed his candidate in the Presidency. This was the Revolution of 1933, but since it had occurred in the form of a simple change of parties, the politically-unconscious American remained unaware.
In 1933, there descended upon Washington the swarm led by Baruch, Lehmann, Morgenthau, Frankfurter, Niles and Rosenman. In their train were thousands of Paswolskis, Messersmiths, Lubins, Berles, Fortases, Lilienthals, Cohens, Ezekiels, Silversteins et al, and bringing up the procession came enough lesser Jews, deracinated liberals, technocrats and aliens to double the population of the capital city within a few years.
Between the cracks in the pavement the Jew recruited a thousand sub-Americans as "radio commentators", newspaper "columnists", and professional propagandists to disseminate the world-outlook the Jew considered appropriate for the American. A multiplicity of government bureaus came into existence, necessarily staffed with Jews. The Jew sought to bring under his control every factor of public expression and influence, thus to make sure that never again would there be a free national election for he did not intend to relinquish his power, so long dreamt of, and now at last real, through the free play of any constitutional game of parties and majorities. He purged the central government of whoever could not be led by the nose, or bought. Who opposed was shouted down, smeared with vile labels, and so silenced.
Thus America was given a semitic countenance.

The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations

The Rivkin Project:

How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to 

Subvert Sovereign Nations

Dr K R Bolton

-----------

During October 19-22, 2010, Charles Rivkin, US Ambassador to France, invited a 29-member delegation from the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) to a conference in France, the stated purpose of which was to discuss Arab and Islamic relations in the country. [1]. The meeting was part of a far-reaching subversive agenda to transform that entire character of France and in particular the consciousness of French youth, which includes the use of France’s Muslim youth in a typically manipulative globalist strategy behind the usual façade of “human rights” and “equality.”

Globalist Delegation at US Embassy

The PCIP report states of the conference:

…The delegation further focused on three key themes. First, the group examined Franco-Muslim issues in France through exchanges with Dr. Bassma Kodmani, Director of the Arab Reform Institute, and Ms. Rachida Dati, the first female French cabinet member of North African origin and current Mayor of the 7th Arrondissement in Paris. A trip to the Grand Mosque of Paris and a meeting with the Director of Theology and the Rector there provided additional insight. Second, meetings with Mr. Jean-Noel Poirier, the Vice President of External Affairs at AREVA (a highly innovative French energy company), and with Mr. Brice Lalonde, climate negotiator and former Minister of the Environment, highlighted energy and nuclear policy issues and the differences between U.S. and French policies in these arenas. And finally, the delegation explored the connections between media and culture in California(Hollywood) and France in meetings at the Louvre, the Musee D’Orsay, and at FRANCE 24 - the Paris-based international news and current affairs channel. [2]

The over-riding concern seems to have been on matters of a multicultural dimension, including not only Arab ands Islamic relations in France, but perhaps more importantly in the long term, a discussion on the impact of Hollywood “culture” on the French.

The USA has long played a duplicitous game of “fighting terrorism” of an “Islamic” nature as one of the primary elements of its post-Cold War stratagem of manufactured permanent crises, while using “radical Islam” for it own purposes, the well-known examples being: (1) Supporting Bin Ladin in the war against Russia in Afghanistan; (2) backing Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran; (3) supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army in ousting the Serbs from mineral rich Kosovo, the KLA having been miraculously transformed from being listed by the US State Department as a “terrorist organization,” to becoming “freedom fighters.”

When US globalists pose as friends of Muslims, the latter should sup with the Great Shaitan with an exceedingly long spoon.

 

What is the Pacific Council on International Policy?

The PCIP, of which Rivkin is a member, was founded in 1995 as a regional appendage of the omnipresent globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Reactions (CFR), [3] It is headquartered in Los Angeles, but “with members and activities throughout the West Coast of the United States and internationally.” Corporate funding comes from, among others:

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
City National Bank

The Ford Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Rockefeller Foundation

United States Institute of Peace [4]

The PCIP is therefore yet another big player in the globalist network comprising hundreds of interconnected organisations, lobbies, “civil society” groups, NGOs, and think tanks, associated the US Government, and with banks and other corporations. As usual, there is a conspicuous presence by Rockefeller interests, and the interesting character, Nicky Rockefeller, is a member, despite the insistence of some “sceptics” that he doesn’t actually exist.

 

Why France?

France has long been a thorn in the side of US globalism because of its stubborn adherence to French interests around the world, rather than those of the manufactured “world community.” Despite Sarkozy, France is one of the few states left in Western Europe with the remnant of a national consciousness. The best way of destroying any such sentiment is to weaken the concepts of nationhood and nationality by means of promoting “multiculturalism.” Was it only a coincidence that the 1968 student revolt, sparked by the most puerile of reasons, occurred at a time both when the CIA was very active in funding student groups around the world, and when President De Gaulle was giving the USA a lot of trouble? De Gaulle did little to play along with American’s post-war plans. He withdrew France from NATO military command. Even during World War II as leader of the Free French, he was distrusted by the USA. [5] Of particular concern would have been De Gaulle’s advocacy of a united Europe to counteract US hegemony. [6] In 1959 he stated at Strasbourg: “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” The expression implied détente between a future neutralist Europe and the USSR. In 1967 he declared an arms embargo on Israel and cultivated the Arab world. This is the type of statesmanship that globalists fear. With the buffoonery of Sarkozy, and mounting tension with disaffected Muslim youth, a backlash could see an intransigently anti-globalist, “xenophobic” regime come to power. In today’s context, what better way now to subvert French nationalism and head-off any potential to revive as an anti-globalist force, than to use France’s large, unassimilated Islamic component, just as the Bolshevik revolution was undertaken to a significant extent by the disaffected minorities of the Russian Empire?

Of interest also is the interest of the PCIP delegation in the influence of Hollywood on French culture. This might seem at first glance to be an odd concern. However Hollywood, as the symbol of international cultural excrescence, is an important factor in globalisation, in what amounts to a world culture-war. Ultimately the goal of globalism is not to promote the survival of ethnic cultures and identities, but rather to submerge them into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.” Therefore multiculturalism should be viewed as the antithesis of what it is understood as being. So far from the global corporates wanting to promote so-called multiculturalism in terms of assuring the existence of a multiplicity of cultures, as the term implies; it is to the contrary part of a dialectical process whereby under the facade of humane ideals, peoples of vastly different heritage are moved across the world like pawns on a chess board. It is an example of Orwellian “doublethink.” [7] It is notable that the instigators of the “velvet revolutions” now sweeping North Africa and reaching into Iran are largely “secularised” youths without strong traditional roots. Similarly, the best way to solve France’s ethnic conflicts and to assure that France does not re-emerge again to confront US/globalist interests, is to dialectically create a new cultural synthesis where there is neither a French culture nor an Islamic culture, but under the banner of “human rights” and “equality,” a globalist youth-based culture nurtured by Hollywood, MTV, cyberspace, MacDonald’s and Pepsi. That this is more than hypothesis is indicated in the manner by which the secular youth revolts now taking place in North Africa have been spawned by an alliance of corporate interests, sponsored by the US State Department and sundry NGOs such as Freedom House. [8] The North African “revolutionaries” are just the type of “Muslim” that the globalists prefer; spawned and nurtured with the cyber-consumer mentality.

So what are Rivkin and the US State Department up to in France, that they should be so interested in the place of Hollywood and of Muslims in the country?

 

The Rivkin Project for Subverting French Youth

That year (2010) when Rivkin had invited a delegation of fellow PCIP members to France, he had outlined a program for the Americanisation of France that primarily involved the use of the Muslim minorities and the indoctrination of French youth with corporate globalist ideals. The slogan invoked was the common commitment France and America historically had to “equality.” Wikileaks released the “confidential” Rivkin program. It is entitled “Minority Engagement Strategy.” [9] Here Rivkin outlines a program that is a far-reaching interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation and, more profoundly, seeks to change the attitudes of generations of Muslim and French youth so that they might be merged into a new globalist synthesis; or what might be called a new humanity: Homo economicus, or what the financial analyst G Pascal Zachary calls “The Global Me,” [10] to achieve what Rivkin describes as USA’s “national interests.” Rivkin begins by stating that his Embassy has created a “Minority Engagement Strategy,” that is directed at Muslims in France. Rivikin states as part of the program: “…We will also integrate the efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our strategy.” [11]

Rivkin is confident that France’s history of ideological liberalism “will serve us well as we implement the strategy outlined here… in which we press France…” Note the phrase: “press France…” America’s global agenda is linked by Rivkin to his blueprint for transferring France into “a thriving, inclusive French polity [which] will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.” The program will focus on the “elites” of the French and the Muslim communities, but will also involve a massive propaganda campaign directed at the “general population,” with a focus on the young.

The program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history. It means that the Pepsi/MTV generation of Americans and their mentors in academe will be formulating new definitions of French culture and writing new pages of French history to accord with globalist agendas. Towards this end: “…we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools.”

“Tactic Number Three” is entitled: “Launch Aggressive Youth Outreach.” As in other states targeted by the US State Department and their allies at the Soros network, Freedom House, Movement.org, National Endowment for Democracy,Solidarity Center, [12] and so forth; disaffected youth are the focus for change. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to “engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values.” Can the intentions be stated any plainer? It is Americanisation culturally and politically. It is here that we can most easily get past the cant and see what is behind the strategy: to form a generation “that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values.” (sic). These “U.S. objectives and values” will be sold to the French as “French values” on the basis of the bourgeoisie ideals of 1789 which continue to encumber French ideology on both Left and Right. The young French will be taught to think that they are upholding French traditions, rather than acting as the useful idiots of Americanization, and concomitant banality of the global shopping mall. A far-reaching program incorporating a variety of indoctrination methods is outlined:

To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France, employing new media, corporate partnerships, nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially invited U.S. guests. [13]

The program directed at youth in France is similar to that directed at the youth that formed the vanguard of the “velvet revolutions” from Eastern Europe to North Africa. Potential leaders are going to be taken up by the US State Department in France and cultivated to play a part in the future France of American design:

We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders.

As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain that the exchanges we support are inclusive.

We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to shape -- values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue. [14]

Here Rivkin is advocating something beyond influencing Muslim’s in France. He is stating that a significant part of the program will be directed towards cultivating French youth, the potential leaders, in “American” ideals, under the façade of French ideals. The US State Department and their corporate allies and allied NGOs intend to “shape their values.” The globalist program for France is stated clearly enough to be the re-education of French youth. One would think that this is the most important role of the French Government, the Catholic Church and the family; the latter two in particular.

As in the states that are chosen for “velvet revolutions” part of the strategy includes demarcating acceptable political boundaries. As Hillary Clinton recently stated in regard to the type of state the US Establishment expects to emerge after Qaddafi, the new Libya should be an “inclusive democracy,” open to all opinions, as long as those opinions include a commitment to “equality” and “democracy;” in other words, there must be a new dispensation of freedom in Libya, so long as that freedom does not extend beyond America’s definition of it. And if someone oversteps the lines of acceptable democracy, there are American bombs on the standby. In the context of France, however, it is clear that the demarcation of French politics according to globalist dictates cannot include any elements of so-called “xenophobia,” (sic) which in today’s context would include a return to the grand politics of the De Gaulle era. Hence, “Tactic 5” states:

Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing best practices with young leaders in all fields, including young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will create or support training and exchange programs that teach the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local politicians. [15]

Rivkin is outlining a program to train France’s future political and civic leaders. While the programs of US Government-backed NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy are designed to develop entire programs and strategies for political parties in “emerging democracies” (sic), this can be rationalised by stating that there is a lack of experience in liberal-democratic party politics in certain states. The same can hardly be used to justify America’s interference inFrance’s party politics. Towards this end Rivkin states that the 1000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils: “We will also provide tools for teaching tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university students who teach English in French schools every year.” The wide-ranging program will be co-ordinated by the “Minority Working Group” in “tandem” with the “Youth Outreach Initiative.” One of the issues monitored by the Group will be the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should, to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalisation.

Rivkin clarifies the subversive nature of the program when stating: “While we could never claim credit for these positive developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out activities, described above, that prod, urge and stimulate movement in the right direction.”

What would the reaction be if the French Government through its Embassy in Washington undertook a program to radically change the USA in accordance with “French national interests,” inculcating through an “aggressive outreach program” focusing on youth, “French ideals” under the guise of “American ideals on human rights?” What would be the response of the US Administration if it was found that the French Government were trying to influence the attitudes of Afro-Americans, American-Indians, and Latinos? What if French officials were ordered to take every opportunity to “press” US officials to ask why there are not more American Indians in Government positions? What would be the officialUS reaction if it were found that French language educators in American schools and colleges were trying to inculcate American pupils with ideas in the service of French interests, and to reshape attitudes towards in a pro-French direction in foreign policy? The hypothetical reaction can be deduced from the US response to the “Soviet conspiracy” when Senate and Congressional committees were set up to investigate anyone even vaguely associated with or accused of being aligned to the USSR. So what’s different? The USA perpetrates a subversive strategy in the interests of it globalist cooperate elite, instead of in the interests of the USSR or communism. It is not as though the USA has had much of a cultural heritage that it can present itself to any European nation, let alone France, as the paragon of good taste and artistic refinement upon which a national identity can be reconstructed in a dialectical process that requires cultural deconstruction.

 

The Role of Multiculturalism in the Globalist Agenda

Many nefarious aims have been imposed under the banners of multiculturalism and associated slogans such as “equality” and “human rights.” Like the word “democracy,” used to justify the bombing of sundry states in recent history, these slogans often serve as rhetoric to beguile the well-intentioned while hiding the aims of those motivated by little if anything other than power and greed. One might think of the manner by which the issue of the Uitlanders was agitated to justify the Anglo-Boer wars for the purpose of procuring the mineral wealth of South Africa for the benefit of Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, et al. A similar issue was revived in our own time, under the name of “fighting apartheid,” and while the world was jubilant at the assumption to power of the ANC, the reality has been that while the Africans have not benefited materially an iota, the parastatals or state owned enterprises are being privatised so that they can be sold off to global capitalism. When the patriarch of South African capitalism, Harry Oppenheimer, whose family was a traditional foe of the Afrikaners, died in 2000 Nelson Mandela eulogised him thus: “His contribution to building partnership between big business and the new democratic government in that first period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much.” [16] The “democracy” Oppenheimer and other plutocrats in tandem with the ANC, had delivered to South Africa is the freedom for global capital to exploit the country. Mandela stated the result of this “long march to freedom” in 1996: “Privatisation is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.” [17]

It is the same outcome for South Africa that was achieved by the “liberation” of Kosovan minerals in the name of “democracy” and in the name of the rights of Muslims under Serb rule, while other Muslims under their own rule are bombed into submission by the USA and its allies. In commenting on the privatisation of the Johannesburg municipal water, which is now under the French corporation Suez Lyonnaise Eaux, the ANC issued a statements declaring that: “Eskom is one of a host of government owned ‘parastatals’ created during the apartheid era which the democratically elected government has set out to privatise in a bid to raise money.” [18] The future of parastatals is more relevant to understating what happened in South Africa than the overthrow of apartheid; and provides a case study in the operations of globalism.

 

The Character of Global Capitalism

The nature of the globalist dialectic has been explained particularly cogently by Noam Chomsky:

See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist - it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional.  I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist - just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic - there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced - that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance. [19]

 

France as a Social Laboratory for Globalisation: 

Paris as a “Global City”

The Rivkin offensive is the latest in a long-time program of undermining French identity. France is a dichotomy of cosmopolitanism as the result of its bourgeoisie revolution of 1789, while nonetheless maintaining a stubborn traditionalism and nationalism, which the globalists term “xenophobia.” It is manifested in even small ways such as the legal obligation of French public servants and politicians to only speak to foreign media in French, regardless of their knowledge of any other language; or the widespread resistance in France to McDonald’s. France, like much of the rest of the world, is however fighting a losing battle against globalisation. Jeff Steiner’s column “Americans in France,” refers to the manner by which the French at one time resisted the opening of the American fast food franchise as “part of an American cultural invasion.” Steiner writes:

…That seems to be past as McDonalds has so become a part of French culture that it’s not seen as an American import any longer, but wholly French. In short, McDonalds has grown on the French just like in so many other countries.

I’ve been to a few McDonalds in France and, except for one in Strasbourg that looks from the outside to be built in the traditional Alsacien style, all McDonalds in France that I have seen look no different than their American counterparts.

Yes, there are those that still curse McDo (They are now a very small group and mostly ignored.) as the symbol of the Americanization of France and who also see it as France losing its uniqueness in terms of cuisine. The menu in a French McDonalds is almost an exact copy of what you would find in any McDonalds in the United States. It struck me as a bit odd that I could order as I would in the United States, that is in English, with the odd French preposition thrown in.

If truth were told, the French who eat at McDonalds are just as much at home there as any American could be. [20]

This seemingly minor example is actually of much importance in showing just how a culture as strong as that of until recently an immensely proud nation can succumb, especially under the impress of marketing towards youngsters. It is a case study par excellence of the standardization that American corporate culture entails. It is what the globalist elite desire on a world scale, right down to what one eats. It is notable that the vanguard of the initial resistance to the opening of McDonalds came from farmers, a traditionalist segment of Europe’s population that are becoming increasingly anomalous, and will under the globalist regime become an extinct species in the process of agricultural corporatisation.

Nonetheless, given France’s historical role of maintaining sovereignty in the face of US interests, even in the current time with its opposition to the war against Iraq, France remains one of the few potentially annoying states in Europe. An added concern is that the French, despite their acceptance of MacDonalds, and their liking for American trash TV, will translate the remnants of their “xenophobia” into the election to Office of a stridently anti-globalist party, as reflected in the electoral ups and downs of the Front National, whose policy would not be in accord with either US foreign policy, or with privatisation and cultural Americanization. Hence the Front National, like other anti-globalist parties, can be attacked by red-herring slogans about “racism” and “hate” to deflect from the real concern which is anti-globalisation. This is a major reason for Rivkin’s far-reaching subversive and interventionist program to assimilate Muslims into French society, which in so doing would also have the result of fundamentally transforming French consciousness into a more thoroughly cosmopolitan mould. The intention is clear enough in the Rivkin Embassy documents where it is stated that the Embassy will monitor the effects of the “outreach” program on the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.”

R J Barnet and R E Müller in their study of the global corporation, Global Reach, [21] which was based on interviews with corporate executives, showed that the French business elite have long been seeking to undermine the foundations of French tradition. Jacques Maisonrouge, president of the IBM World Trade Corporation “likes to point out that; ‘Down with borders’, a revolutionary student slogan of the 1968 Paris university uprising – in which some of his children were involved – is also a welcome slogan at IBM.” [22] Maisonrouge stated that the “World Managers” (as Barnett and Muller call the corporate executives) believe they are making the world “smaller and more homogeneous.” [23] Maisonrouge approvingly described the global corporate executive as “the detribalised, international career men.” [24] It is this “detribalisation” that is the basis of a world consumer culture required to more efficiently create a world economy.

 In the 1970s Howard Perlmutter and Hasan Ozekhan of the Wharton School of Finance Worldwide Institutions Programme prepared a plan for a “global city.” Paris was chosen for the purpose. Prof. Perlmutter was a consultant to global corporations. His plan was commissioned by the French Government planning agency on how best to make Paris a “global city.” Perlmutter predicted that cities would become “global cities” during the 1980s. For Paris this required “becoming less French” and undergoing “denationalisation.” This, he said, requires a “psycho-cultural change of image with respect to the traditional impression of ‘xenophobia’ that the French seem to exclude.” The parallels with the current Rivkin program are apparent. Perlmutter suggested that the best way of ridding France of its nationalism was to introduce multiculturalism. He advocated “the globalisation of cultural events” such as international rock festivals, as an antidote to “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture.” [25]

Is this aim of undermining France’s “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture” the purpose of Rivkin’s interest in associations between Hollywood and French culture, as reported by the PCIP itself in regard to the delegation that met in France in 2010, when, “the delegation explored the connections between media and culture in California (Hollywood) and France.” [26] Rivkin knows the value of entertainment in transforming attitudes, especially among the young.After working as a corporate finance analyst at Salomon Brothers, Rivkin joined The Jim Henson Company in 1988 as director of strategic planning. Two years later, he was made vice president of the company. The Jim Henson Company while producing the endearing characters of “Sesame Street,” had a social agenda directed at toddlers. The social engineering purpose becomes evident when one recalls that the production was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the US Office of Education. Lawrence Balter, professor of applied psychology at New York University, wrote of the production that it, “…introduced children to a broad range of ideas, information, and experiences about diverse topics such as death, cultural pride, race relations, people with disabilities, marriage, pregnancy, and even space exploration.” The series was the first to employ educational researchers, with the formation of a Research Department. [27] Of passing interest is that the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation are also patrons of the Pacific Council on International Policy. Whether one thinks that such methods aimed at pre-schoolers are laudable depends on one’s perspective, just as one might agree with the Rivkin program of inculcating French youth with globalist ideals in the service of “American interests.”

 

Creating The World Consumer: 

Homo Economicus: “The Global Me”

As Chomsky has pointed out, global capitalism sees humanity in terms interchangeable cogs in the production and consumption cycle. The summit of corporate human evolution is transformation into “detribalised, international career men” described enthusiastically by G Pascal Zachary, financial journalist, as being an “informal global aristocracy”, recruited over the world by the corporations, depending totally on their companies and “little upon the larger public,” a new class unhindered by national, cultural or ethnic bonds. [28]

Barnett and Müller quoted Pfizer’s John J Powers as stating that global corporations are “agents for change, socially, economically and culturally.” [29] They stated that global executives see “irrational nationalism” as inhibiting “the free flow of finance capital, technology and goods on a global scale.” A crucial aspect of nationalism is that “differences in psychological and cultural attitudes, that complicate the task of homogenising the earth into an integrated unit…. Cultural nationalism is also a serious problem because it threatens the concept of the Global Shopping Center.” [30]

It is this “cultural nationalism” which is described by Rivkin, and all other partisans of globalism, as “xenophobia,” unless that “xenophobia” can be marshalled in the service of a military adventure when bribes, embargoes and threats don’t bring a reticent state into line, as in the cases of Serbia, Iraq, and perhaps soon, Libya. Then the American globalist elite and their allies become “patriots,” but still don’t seem to do much combat.

Barnet and Müller cite A W Clausen when he headed the Bank of America, as stating that national, cultural and racial differences create “marketing problems”, lamenting that there is “no such thing as a uniform, global market.” [31] Harry Heltzer, Chief Executive Officer of 3M stated that global corporations are a “powerful voice for world peace because their allegiance is not to any nation, tongue, race or creed but to one of the finer aspirations of mankind, that the people of the world may be united in common economic purpose.” [32]

These “finer aspirations of mankind,” known in other quarters as greed, avarice, Mammon-worship... have despoiled the earth, caused economic imbalance, and operate on usury that was in better times regarded as sin. These “finer aspirations,” by corporate reckoning, have caused more wars than any “xenophobic” dictator, usually in the name of “world peace,” and “democracy.”

The Rivkin doctrine for France – which according to the leaked document, must be carried out in a subtle manner - is a far-reaching subversive program to transform especially the young into global clones devoid of cultural identity, while proceeding, in the manner of Orwellian “doublethink” in the name of “multiculturalism.”

K R Bolton is a “contributing writer” for The Foreign Policy Journal, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, Athens. His articles and papers have appeared on a variety of subjects in both scholarly and popular media, including: Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies, Trinity College, Dublin; Journal of Social and Political Studies; International Journal of Russian Studies; Geopolitika, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University; Journal of Social Economics; World Affairs; India Quarterly; Antrocom Journal of Anthropology; Global Research; Eurasia Review; The Occidental Quarterly; Radio Free Asia Vietnamese Service, Novosti Foreign Service, etc. Translations in Vietnamese, Russian, Latvian, Czech, Farsi, French, Italian. Contact: vindex@clear.net.nz

Notes

[1] “2010 France Country Dialogue,” PCIP,  http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=583

[2] “2010 France Country Dialogue,” ibid.

[3] “Founded in 1995 in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations,” PCIP, Governance, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=373

[4] Corporate and Foundation funding: http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=513

[5] S Berthon, Allies At War, (London: Collins, 2001), p. 21.

[6] A Crawley, De Gaulle (London: The Literary Guild, 1969), p. 439.

[7] “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....” George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (London: Martin Secker and Warburg, 1949), Part 1, Ch. 3, p. 32

[8] K R Bolton, “Twitters of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 28, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/28/twitterers-of-the-world-revolution-the-digital-new-new-left/0/

Tony Cartalucci, “Google’s Revolution Factory – Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0,” Global Research, February 23, 2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23283

[9] C Rivkin, “Minority Engagement Report,” US Embassy, Paris, http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2010/01/10PARIS58.html

[10] G Pascal Zachary, The Global Me: Why Nations will Succeed or Fail in the Next Generation  (New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin, 2000).

[11] C Rivkin, op. cit.

[12] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/

[13] C Rivkin, op. cit.

[14] C Rivkin, ibid.

[15] C Rivkin, ibid.

[16] “Mandela honours ‘monumental’ Oppenheimer”, The Star, South Africa, August 21, 2000, http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000821001004683O150279

[17] Lynda Loxton, , “Mandela: We are going to Privatise,” The Saturday Star, May 25, 1996, p.1.

[18] ANC daily news briefing, June 27, 2001. See also “Eskom”, ANC Daily News Briefing, June 20, 2001, 70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/2001/news0621.txt

[19] Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New York Press, 2002), pp. 88-89.

[20] J Steiner, “Americans in France: Culture: McDonalds in France,” http://www.americansinfrance.net/culture/mcdonalds_in_france.cfm

[21] R J Barnet and R E Müller, Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974).

[22] R J Barnet and R E Müller, Ibid., p. 19. For an update on Maisonrouge see: IBM, http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/builders/builders_maisonrouge.html

[23] Barnett &, Müller, ibid., p. 62.

[24] R J Barnet and R E Müller, ibid.

[25] R J Barnet and R E Müller, ibid., pp. 113-114.

[26] “2010 France Country Dialogue,” PCIP, op. cit.

[27] L Balter, Parenthood in America: An Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1 (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2000), p. 556.

[28] G Pascal Zachary, The Global Me (New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2000).

[29] Barnett & Müller, op.cit., p. 31.

[30] Barnett & Müller, ibid.,p. 58.

[31] Barnett & Müller, ibid.

[32] Barnett & Müller, ibid., p. 106.