The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left


Richard Moore


Lots of good links to follow-up here...


From: "Tom" <•••@••.•••>
To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;">
Subject: Scoop UQ Wire The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:54:05 -0500


UQ Wire: The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left

Wednesday, 4 May 2005, 11:59 am
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire .

Regulated Resistance: Pt. 2 - The Gatekeepers of the So-Called

Tuesday, May 03, 2005 By
( Charles Shaw Editor
( ) (Missed Pt. 1? - Go here
( Charles Shaw:
Regulated Resistance: Pt. 1 or
( Here on

( Click To View Full

Last February United for Peace and Justice, the largest
representative coalition within the American "anti-war
movement", emerged from their second annual Assembly with a
2005 "action plan" that effectively caged the "anti-war"
debate exclusively within the Iraq conflict to achieve
partisan ends on behalf of the pro-war Democratic Party and
their Neoliberal corporate benefactors. Their "action plan"
refused to address any of the core issues of US Foreign and
Defense policy, which are the root causes of a pervading
culture of war and militarism that has taken over the nation
in the years since WWII.

These decisions are part of a larger pattern of "regulated
resistance", a system by which dissent is carefully managed
and constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship;
denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional
criticism and reprisal; and pressure from powers above
including elected officials and those establishment
foundations which flood millions into the not-for-profit
activist sector.

This establishment money, and the access it grants, has caused
many ostensible resistance leaders to suddenly and
dramatically abandon long-held ideological positions and shift
their behavior towards doing what can clearly be seen as the
bidding of those in power whose views and values are in direct
contravention to the established mores of peace and justice
movements throughout history.

These "resistance leaders" of the "Left" act as
"Gatekeepers"-influential "progressive" figures who use their
resources and visibility to regulate the debate, tactics, and
rhetoric of the "anti-war" and other "progressive" movements.

The Gatekeepers of the So-Called "Left"

"The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for
no other reason than to tell us lies where their interests are
concerned." - Henry Adams

In his shocking
investigative report "The Left Gatekeepers", journalist Bob
Feldman researched purportedly "Left" activist and media
organizations that receive substantial funding from large
establishment foundations with known ties to the CIA, the
( Council on Foreign Relations, the
( Trilateral Commission, and even
the much-maligned Carlyle Group, the arms dealing "investment
fund" featured in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, of which
GHW Bush, the Saudi royal family, and, at one time, the Bin
Laden family, are all equity partners.

The Foundation structure is used by these organizations to
funnel corporate and personal wealth into the policy-making
process. Foundations are tax-free, and contributions to
foundations are deductible from federal corporate and
individual income taxes. The Foundations themselves are not
subject to federal income taxation, and they control hundreds
of billions of dollars of money that would normally go to pay
these necessary taxes.

Feldman asks, "Are the interests of the people being served by
'dissidents' who are being subsidized by the agencies of the
ruling class whom they should be exposing? What does this say
about the motivations behind the Left establishment's
ideological warfare against conspiracy researchers, and their
adoption of an increasingly watered-down analytical view which
fails to look closely at the inner power structures and
conspiracies of the ruling elite?"

Many of these "dissidents" Feldman describes are members of
the UFPJ Steering Committee, and he specifically cites
prominent peace activist Medea Benjamin, and Leslie Cagan, the
renowned anti-nuke activist who is now UFPJ's National

Disproportionate Influence and a Profound Conflict of Interest

Medea Benjamin and Kevin Danaher co-founded the international
human rights organization ( )
Global Exchange 17 years ago. In that time they have been
consistently clear and outspoken with their views on war and
Neoliberalism-more commonly known as corporate globalization.
Because of their combined intellectual acuity and renowned
fearlessness, Benjamin's media savvy, and the access they have
been granted through some of their more prominent benefactors
such as the MacArthur Foundation and billionaire financier
George Soros, they have come to command a high level of
visibility in progressive politics.

Benjamin has fast made a name for herself as a leading figure
in the "anti-war movement" with well-publicized media stunts
at the Republican and Democratic Conventions, disruptions of
FCC and Congressional hearings, and frequent trips to the
Middle East to showcase the suffering of the Iraqi and Afghani
people. She also benefits from her proximity to well-known
"progressive" leaders, celebrities, and journalists. Alongside
her ( ) Code Pink
Women for Peace, and Danaher's ( ) Green Festivals, Global
Exchange has come to command a significant market share in the
larger peace and justice community, reaping enormous "street
cred" within the activist world.

Benjamin also wields a disproportionate amount of weight
within the Green Party of the United States, having run for
Senator of California on their ticket in 2000, and within the
anti-war umbrella group ( )
United for Peace and Justice, where she sits on their Steering
Committee and is arguably their most influential member. As
testament, Benjamin and her Global Exchange/Code Pink cadre
were the authors of three of the five proposals passed by UFPJ
at the February Assembly.

But during the 2004 Presidential campaign, Benjamin's message
and tone began to shift dramatically into what came to be
known as the "ABB" movement-Anybody But Bush. She and eighty
fellow prominent leaders who once formed the one
hundred-thirteen member "( )
Nader 2000 Citizens Committee" put forth a petition urging
anti-war Nader not to run, and instead threw their support
behind pro-war Democratic Party candidate John Kerry. At the
Green Party National Convention in Milwaukee last June
Benjamin campaigned heavily for "safe-state" candidate David
Cobb, who was also unabashedly ABB and even initially pledged
not to run in swing states, though he now denies it. Benjamin
cajoled Greens into neither nominating Nader nor giving him
the official endorsement he and running mate Peter Camejo had
publicly sought from the party.

The pro and con arguments of ABB have been argued
exhaustively, and many do not find the issue relevant any
longer. But they are relevant when considering just how UFPJ
became ABB and has since found itself embroiled in partisan
politics working to attack exclusively the Bush Administration
and their competing Neoconservative movement, despite the fact
that American war policy is a bipartisan program.

Leslie Cagan's Pacifica Foundation is funded by the
Rockefeller Foundation, the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (which was recently taken over by
( ) what
has been described as a "Right Wing coup"), the
Rockefeller-funded Working Assets group, and the ubiquitous
George Soros. Like PBS,
ai_72274469) the Pacifica Network recently went through a
takeover drama where a cabal of Board members attempted to
sell the station off to center-mainstream corporate interests.
Cagan is also reportedly connected to the right-wing Ford
Foundation, which funnels money to her through a Lesbian
advocacy group known as Astraea.

( ) Peace Action, which describes
itself as "the nation's largest grassroots peace group" that
"gets results," is funded in part by a Working Assets grant.
Both Peace Action and Working Assets gave UFPJ a combined
total of $45,000 for their 2003 operating budget
(( ) the last
year UFPJ published their financial statements, something they
are required by law to do annually). UFPJ also received a
$151,000 grant from the Funding Exchange, a network of social
justice foundations throughout the United States that gives
money to progressive organizations.

What outrages many of those within the activist community who
are aware of these funding sources is that these so-called
"dissidents" would consent to take money from these
( )
given the long and voluminous history they have as part of the
war-making establishment.

In his book Trading with the Enemy, Charles Hingham documents
how both the Rockefeller and Ford fortunes were enhanced in
part through collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers
by selling the Nazis oil through the Standard Oil Company, and
the Fords by selling the Nazis tanks through subsidiary
corporations (note: the only industrial infrastructure spared
in the Allied bombing of Germany was the Ford Motors plant
near Cologne). Both Standard Oil (eventually Amoco) and the
Ford Motor Co. made huge profits from Defense contracts
following WWII. Since 1950 a Rockefeller has held a prominent
leadership position in the ( ) Council on
Foreign Relations, and David Rockefeller was cofounder of the
( ) Trilateral Commission. Both
organizations helped craft the "Carter Doctrine" of the late
1970s which stated that the US would heretofore intervene
militarily to protect its oil supply from the Middle East.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been the historical
driving force behind such bedrock institutions of corporate
globalization as the United Nations, World Bank, International
Monetary Fund, Word Trade Organization, and NATO, and which
Esquire magazine referred to in 1962 as "that part of the
Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation." In 1950,
the Chicago Tribune published a story on the CFR in which they
stated, "[the members] have used the prestige that their
wealth, their social position, and their education have given
them to lead their country towards bankruptcy and military
debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on
them-the dried blood of the last war and the fresh blood of
the present one."

Billionaire George Soros, who refers to himself as a
"progressive philanthropist",
( )
has since 1995 been part of the arms-dealing Carlyle Group, in
which he has invested a reported $100 Million, and has
substantial stock holdings in weapons manufacturers Boeing and
Lockheed-Martin. He is a member and former Director of the
CFR, and is a member of the enigmatic ( ) Bilderberg Group, a collection of
approximately 1300 of the world's richest and most powerful
figures in business, banking, media, military, and government,
who meet once a year in extreme secrecy and under almost
unfathomable security, and whose official purpose and actions
remain a mystery, spurring a deluge of wide-ranging

The 353-member American contingent of Bilderberg is a
bipartisan cavalcade that includes Paul Wolfowitz, David
Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Vernon Jordan,
Melinda Gates, Bill Clinton, and Alan Greenspan. It is long
argued and well documented that the mission of this
organization, working in conjunction with the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, is to
manipulate world governments and economies to promote a
global, capitalist agenda commonly referred to as the "New
World Order". These supranational bodies seek to dismantle
national sovereignty (through mechanisms such as "Free Trade"
agreements) in favor of a one-world government which primarily
upholds the rights of corporations and the wealthy over the

This connection begs the question: How much influence does
Soros and his ilk have over Benjamin et al, and, by proxy, the
"anti-war movement"? Is this relationship the reason Benjamin
has dropped the anti-Globalization rhetoric and instead become
immersed in partisan wrangling over the Bush Administration
and the war in Iraq? Is this the reason she has adopted a
"blowback" stance with regards to 9/11 and the resultant "War
on Terror"? At the UFPJ Assembly, Benjamin abstained from
voting on the 9/11 Truth proposal, and afterwards explained
her abstention by claiming she was "afraid a vote for the
proposal would mean that UFPJ would have to work with certain
'difficult people' involved in the 9/11 Truth movement."

It is unfortunate Benjamin cannot bring herself to work with
"difficult" people (even though it is doubtful she is even
aware of just who is and is not a recognized credible member
of 9/11 Truth). Because of the nature of 9/11 research, it
sadly finds itself constantly infiltrated by the proverbial
kook and various degrees of disinformation, but Benjamin and
UFPJ have taken an all-inclusive, monolithic view of this very
complex and diverse movement. It is even more unfortunate, and
some might argue tragic, that personal foibles take priority
over justice for the families of 3,000 people killed on that
fateful day in September, and the hundreds of thousands killed
in the name of the "War on Terror" as some form of retribution
for 9/11. Unless, of course, it was not a personal foible that
influenced her decision to abstain, but something more direct,
such as a mandate from her funders, the threat of some form of
professional backlash or reprisal, or simple peer disapproval.

And perhaps the greatest insult to injury is that she is now
raising money for the (somewhat oxymoronic) Progressive
Democrats of America. As Ralph Nader's running mate Peter
html) wrote in an open letter to the Green Party, "In the fund
appeal for the PDA [Benjamin] says the PDA is not the
Democratic Party. It is like saying the Panama Canal is not

The Failed Obligations and Inexcusable Denials of the "Left"

To offer a clear portrait of how "regulated resistance" works
within the "Left" or "progressive" media, consider their
steadfast refusal to report on or organize around two of the
most important incidents in modern American history as
pertains to our present situation-possible US government
involvement in 9/11, and the relationship between the Bush
family and the Nazi regime in Germany.

Sins of Omission and Distortion: 9/11, and the Rubber Stamp

As mentioned throughout this article, the first and perhaps
greatest failure of the "anti-war movement" is
( ) the
shameful irresponsibility the "Left" has shown by their
refusal to challenge the "official" story behind 9/11.

Bob Feldman writes:

Not surprisingly, the rank and file didn't buy into the
hype-nor were many convinced by the gatekeepers' offhand,
passionless calls for an official investigation. Interest in
alternative 9/11 reporting continued to grow, and by the time
that members of 9/11 victim's families began publicly
demanding an end to the government cover-up and even
mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times were
admitting that the lack of an independent investigatory
commission was "extraordinary," the Left media gatekeepers
backed down and adopted a new tactic of silent stonewalling
and tacit support for the official story.

Despite widespread and well-documented critiques that even
"War on Terror" apologists acknowledge,
( the corporate media has
never once challenged the "official" story. Instead, they
gleefully lapped up the Osama theory fed to it by the Bush
Administration while the fires at Ground Zero were still
burning, and in the 18 months between 9/11 and the invasion of
News&file=article&sid=24&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) settled
comfortably into its role as "Bush handmaiden and peace
movement disciplinarian."

But the absence of any challenge to this story from the
"anti-war movement" is frankly disturbing on a level that
supersedes even the craven behavior of the corporate media.
Although the "Left" has no compunction attacking Bush and his
Neoconservative cabal, it consistently fails to see how the
ongoing bipartisan validation of the "official" story is the
license the US Government takes to continue their imperial
ambitions through the chimera known as the "War on Terror",
and by proxy, the corporate neocolonialism occurring across
the globe.

The 9/11 Truth movement got a fledgling chance to make its
case to the "Left" on May 26th, 2004, when, Amy Goodman, host
of the flagship Progressive news source Democracy NOW!, agreed
to host prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The
New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11. Her decision followed a long and
relentless (
"Waking Amy" campaign organized by Emanuel Sferios of the 9/11
Visibility Project.

However, at the last minute, Goodman abruptly and without
explanation changed the format of the show from an interview
to a "debate," and brought in long-time "anti-conspiracist"
Chip Berlet. Berlet is not an expert on 9/11 research, and his
group, Political Research Associates, is an alleged "Left"
organization that is funded in part by the Ford Foundation.
(It is interesting to note that "Chip" Berlet's full name is
John Foster Berlet. He was named after John Foster Dulles who,
with his brother Allen, designed the CIA for Harry Truman in
1947, and played a prominent role in smuggling Nazis into
America to help build the post-WWII American "Defense" and
Intelligence apparatus).

Despite their being a virtual laundry list of inconsistencies
to the "official" story, and documented proof of government
cover-up activity, the final product,
"The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The
Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks," focused
almost exclusively on a handful of weak speculations made by
French researcher Thierry Meyssan, not Griffin, about aspects
of the Pentagon strike. This well-worn tactic known as the
"straw man argument" is used by detractors to attack and
undermine the weakest part of an alternative theory in order
to dismiss it and alienate the public from the larger issue.
If a journalist with otherwise flawless research happens to
have one bad assertion, the 90 per cent he or she got right is
generally ignored in favor of attaching the person to their
one misstep. This tactic presupposes in a "deductive" argument
that the theory is only as strong as the weakest link. Berlet
tried to discredit Griffin by associating him with Meyssan,
even though Griffin stated clearly on the show that his book
merely compiled information from other researchers in order to
raise questions that made a solid case that the "official" was
simply implausible.

By only choosing to focus on the most difficult theories to
believe-regardless of their potential merit-Goodman and Berlet
completely missed the point. Griffin stated quite clearly on
the program: "There are all sorts of possible theories as to
what happened. You don't have to come up with an alternative
theory to show that the 'official' theory is very

Berlet countered by saying, "It's not good to believe in
conspiracies that cannot be proven by available evidence." But
this principle does not take into account the prevalent role
of cover-ups in these types of operations (such as this one
being perpetrated by the US Government), which prevents
potentially enlightening evidence from ever being examined.
Some more notable examples include the total failure of air
defenses and the role of hijack-based "war games" exercises
taking place that morning, the admitted controlled-demolition
of Building 7 which had to have been pre-wired, all the steel
from the Twin Towers which was immediately shipped to China
without being studied, all the video footage of the Pentagon
strike which was promptly seized by the FBI (even though
disclosure would have put an end to all the wild "no plane,
missile strike" theories of Meyssan and others), and the notes
from the now infamous closed-door Bush/Cheney "visit" with the
9/11 Commission, which were promptly confiscated.

Berlet's approach to discrediting "conspiracy theory"
reinforces what can be called the "disbelief" factor, as in "I
just can't believe that the Bush Administration/US
Government/Americans/people would do such a thing!" Although
this knee-jerk emotional response is understandable and easily
explainable within the context of human psychology, it does
not amount to a logical defense of the "official" story. In
the absence of any substantive debate, another psychological
factor operated alongside the "disbelief" factor: As Griffin
states, "the Bush administration created a halo over 9/11, so
it became not only unpatriotic, but almost sacrilegious to
raise any questions." The "anti-war movement" and "Left"
media, ostensibly dissident by nature and thus obliged to
question, instead pulled right into lockstep with the
government and corporate media, rubber-stamping the "official"
version of events.

Griffin did end up writing
( a lengthy
response to Berlet's misleading critique, but the damage had
already been done. Goodman never really inquired beyond the
"straw man" arguments Berlet kept pounding, and no other
"Left" media outlet with the audience of Democracy NOW! has
touched the story since.

It is important to note that Democracy NOW! was awarded a
grant_id=209798) Ford Foundation grant in 2002 "to continue
incorporating the aftermath of the September 11th attack into
future broadcasts," and received a further $150,000
( from Ford in

Emanuel Sferios says the Ford Foundation does not have to
explicitly tell Democracy NOW! how they want 9/11 to be
covered. He explains that "Democracy NOW! will simply
self-censor, because they want future money from the Ford
Foundation. It's also important to note that Amy Goodman
coined a new, pejorative phrase to dismiss the 9/11 Truth
Movement. She is the first in history, as far as I know, to
refer to us as a "conspiracy theory movement."

The most glaring irony in all of this is that it was Goodman
herself who uttered these words:

"I think the media has reached an all-time low in this
country. And that is a terrible violation of what our
profession is supposed to do. We are supposed to hold those in
power accountable. We're not supposed to cozy up to those in
power, not supposed get the perks of the powerful. We are
supposed to be there to, if not keep the politicians honest,
show what's going on. And it is very serious now because we're
talking about wartime... And when the media acts as a conveyer
belt for the lies of the administration, we not only are
violating our responsibility, but those lies take lives."

Furthering these sins of omission regarding 9/11 is the
"Left's" refusal to address any of the voluminous evidence
uncovered by controversial journalist
( Michael Ruppert in his
books) Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American
Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.

Ruppert's investigation, the most thorough of any effort thus
far including the Kean Commission, has been publicly attacked
more than any other independent effort, which for many is a
testament to its effectiveness.

In what seemed like a coordinated effort, David Corn and
Norman Solomon, purported "Left" journalists, through The
Nation and Pacifica Radio, repeatedly pilloried Ruppert for
almost two years before his book was released-without once
addressing the evidence presented. The sum total of their
response to Rubicon was to engage in a series of ad hominem
attacks portraying Ruppert as mentally unstable. Although
Ruppert is an impassioned, domineering, even frequently
alienating character with a classic type-A personality
(perhaps he could be described as "difficult"?) who has very
little patience for those who question his work, he is
anything but insane, and his personality is not all that
different from many of the personalities we have been
discussing. What is never taken into consideration when
discussing his "psychology", however, is that Ruppert has a
lot of reason to be sensitive about the issue of government
corruption and malfeasance. Multiple attempts have been made
on his life for trying to expose CIA and LAPD complicity in
the South Central crack-cocaine trade. Anyone familiar with
the history of disinformation tactics will recognize the
Corn/Solomon attacks as a tried and true method of
discrediting not only an author or researcher, but an entire
line of investigation.

It should be noted that the MacArthur-funded Nation, for which
Corn is a staff writer, has ties back to the CIA and its
former director William Casey, and the
( Manhattan Institute, and
Chief Editor Katrina vanden Heuval's father was involved in
analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html) "Operation
Mockingbird", a CIA project originating in the early days of
the Cold War to buy influence behind the scenes at major media
outlets and put reporters on the CIA payroll. Solomon is the
Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington
and is the ostensible head of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In
Reporting), funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations,
Working Assets group, and the Shumann Foundation.

A Story That Would Outrage Anyone-But No One Knows About

The "Left" has also consistently refused, on any level, to
report or act on the established connection between the Bush
Family and the Nazi Party during the 1930's, 40's, and early

John Buchanan, the charismatic, relentless independent
journalist from Miami wrote about his inability to get any
mainstream media source to pick up his New Hampshire Gazette
detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2) "Bush-Nazi Dealings Continued
Until 1951" in his 2004 book, Fixing America: Breaking the
Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media, and the Religious

Even though Buchanan's reporting was based on facts that came
directly from declassified official documents currently in the
National Archives, not one single mainstream news source
agreed to even look at the government documents, which
chronicled the long history of collaboration between Bush's
grandfathers Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, Prescott
Bush's employer A. Averell Harriman of Brown Brothers
Harriman, and Nazi industrialist and financier Fritz Thyssen.
Between 1942 and 1951, under the "Trading with the Enemy Act,"
the US Government seized 33 Bush-Harriman-Nazi businesses and
client assets. But instead of facing a firing squad for
treason during war time, Prescott Bush pocketed $1.5 Million
from the liquidation of the first and largest of the 33
businesses, the Union Banking Corporation, principle investor
in the Silesian-American Corporation which used slave-labor
from the Auschwitz concentration camp for mining in Poland.
None of the principles in the deal were ever brought to

This story should have resurfaced every time one of the Bush
men ran for or was appointed to public office. Instead, it was
spun relentlessly, and eventually buried. Only The Guardian of
London eventually picked up on this story in one subsequent
article nearly a year later titled,
"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power".

Buchanan goes on to say:

"Perhaps more troubling, and certainly more surprising, not
even left-leaning media, 'alternative media' outlets, or media
watchdog groups would touch the story. The Bush-bashing editor
of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and her assistant Peggy
Suttles, both declined to pursue the story... Don Hazen, a
founder of alt-media online syndicate, Alternet, also refused
to report the story... Norman Solomon, a regular op-ed
contributor to The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los
Angeles Times, and Washington Post, initially agreed to help
get the story out "to the world" until he discovered that his
four bread-and-butter newspapers had all turned down the
documents... Later, even the Center for American Progress, a
George Soros-funded liberal think tank in Washington-headed by
former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta-would refuse to
acknowledge or help expose the Bush-Nazi connection."

(Ed's note: Alternet also refused to consider this article for

Although history tends to ignore it, the United States' rise
to global dominance was largely made possible by former Nazis
who were smuggled into the country during and after the war to
work in secret weapons labs, and lay the foundation for what
would become the controlled mass-media. Nazi scientists
invented the technology for the jet engine, the ballistic
missile, the nuclear bomb, and other classified weapons and
surveillance technologies that both the Americans and the
Soviets appropriated for use in the Cold War.

These parent companies of the Left Gatekeeper foundations
became part of what Dwight D. Eisenhower coined in his
farewell address the "Military-Industrial Complex," which
since the end of WWII has expropriated an estimated $15
Trillion in American taxpayer money for "Defense" spending.
features/dorrellandreas.php) as author Joel Andreas notes, "is
more than the amount of money spent on all the existing
man-made wealth of the US: that is every building, highway,
park, factory, car, and what have you."

CONCLUSION: The Death of Authentic Resistance

Michael Novick of the Anti-Racist Action network has been
around a long time, and has a list of bona fides pages long.
He has seen many an organization come and go, and he believes
that the 501(c)3/NGO/not-for-profit corporate model has been
the death of popular movements and authentic resistance.

"Such organizations vacuumed up the flotsam and jetsam of the
resistance movements of the 60s and 70s, gave them paid staff
positions, and neutered them. This was true long before the
emergence of the current round of the 'anti-war movement'. It
happened to the women's movement and the Black and Chicano
liberation struggles as far back as the 70s. In the late 80s,
most of the anti-racist projects that sprung up to deal with
the first wave of Neo-Nazism went the board and staff,
grant-writing model, with the result that they lost both their
militancy and their anti-establishment spark, making them
politically irrelevant. Most went out of business as other
vogues took precedence with funders."

There is no doubt that this madness must stop, and yet, where
is the "anti-war movement" here when we need them most? Not
reading this article, for sure, even though it was written for
those who would attack just-cause critics of the "anti-war
movement", those who lament that they have no other funding
options and who can bring themselves to rationalize taking
blood money, those who put their own names and careers ahead
of the people they purportedly represent-and for all those who
recognize this hypocrisy and want something more, something
better. Though it is difficult and may require sacrifice and
even dismantling this corrupted system, we must look at how
our movements come to dance with the devil, and turn into the
very things that we once so despised


Charles Shaw is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Newtopia,
and has been deeply involved in the anti-war movement since
the bombing of Afghanistan. Newtopia Magazine is a member
group of United for Peace and Justice.


not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for the
relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the
reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in
helping to build bridges between our various investigative
communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the
unanswered questions which now lie before us.

If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland

"Escaping The Matrix - 
Global Transformation: 
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: