The FTAA’s Controlled Opposition

The rent-a-mob that descended on Miami provided a familiar service: scaring away responsible opponents and further justifying the police state build-up.

The motley collection of protesters who came to Miami to demonstrate against the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has become a familiar sight at these confabs. As usual, the weird menagerie included a mixture of the prosaic, the perverse, the vicious, the absurd, and the obscene: union hard hats, self-proclaimed lesbian "dykes," clench-fisted Communists, tie-dyed dolphin dancers, and grotesquely tattooed grandmas. There were lots of t-shirts sporting the visage of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara or cop-killer convict Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Watermelon Marxist contingent (Red on the inside, Green on the outside) was there in force: the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Green Party, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. There were hammer-and-sickle symbols aplenty on flags, banners, socks, backpacks, hats and skin. There was an abundant sprinkling of black-garbed anarchists who covered their faces with ski masks or neckerchiefs. And, of course, there were legions of peaceniks — the leftist folks who reliably oppose every U.S. military effort but fervently embrace so-called wars of liberation by Communist-backed, anti-American forces worldwide.

These are the usual suspects we have come to expect at this sort of event, ever since the infamous 1999 demonstrations against the World Trade Organization (WTO) erupted into the violent and destructive "Battle of Seattle." They are actors in an ongoing scripted charade that has been orchestrated by many of the Establishment elites they ostensibly came to oppose. The leaders of both the pro-FTAA and anti-FTAA forces have been working hand in hand to advance the same one-world agenda.

The radical street cadres would not materialize without the massive funding provided by the major tax-exempt foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and MacArthur. These foundations and the transnational corporations that fund the enviro-Leninists and other extremists invariably share an important common denominator: their boards of directors are peppered with members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is one of the most important Insider brain trusts promoting the FTAA one-world agenda.

Those unfamiliar with the realities of power politics may find it hard to believe that there is any harmony of purpose between the protesters in the street and the delegates inside the summit. But there most certainly is; the CFR one-worlders are paying for an important service. For one thing, the street theater that the radical demonstrators provide is a wonderful diversion distracting public attention from the subversive schemes of the CFR’s "free trade" negotiators in the silk suits. Secondly, the repulsive appearance of many of the FTAA protesters and their lawless actions make the FTAA proponents appear conservative and eminently respectable by comparison. The same repellent image of the demonstrators also serves to taint and discourage all others who might otherwise oppose the FTAA on completely legitimate, principled grounds. No patriot wants to be associated with such revolting rabble.

The rent-a-mob agitators also provide a compelling pretext for the further erosion of liberties and advancement of the police state, in the name of order and homeland security. In view of past violence and destruction caused by demonstrations against the WTO, FTAA and World Bank — not to mention the possibility of 9/11-type terrorism — local Miami residents and officials had good reason to be fearful. But Uncle Sam came to the rescue; Congress rolled $8.5 million for security for the Miami summit into the multi-billion dollar Iraq funding bill. And the result? Miami became an armed camp, as armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and riot police swarmed over the city. It is a scenario that has become more and more common as communities are forced to respond to the threat of mayhem from the civil demolitionists.

Finally, the street agitators offer another very important service: They provide a pretext for the globalist elites to grab more power supposedly in response to the demands of "the people." The "Battle of Seattle" provided an excellent example of this pincers strategem at work. With the city still smouldering, the CFR claque in the Clinton administration agreed to listen to the concerns that were motivating the protesters. Led by the Ford Foundation’s professional radicals Lori Wallach and Ralph Nader, the Seattle protesters demanded that the WTO move beyond its exclusive focus on trade issues and adopt international labor, education, environmental, and health care standards. The CFR global corporatists have been only too happy to accommodate these appeals to expand the transgovernmental jurisdiction of the WTO.

As leftist academic Francis Fukuyama noted in a December 1, 1999 Wall Street Journal article, the Left should be grateful that the WTO has been advancing their radical agenda. "By creating the WTO, global capitalism has solved the left’s collective action problem," Fukuyama averred. "The WTO is the only international organization that stands any chance of evolving into an institution of global governance, setting rules not only for how countries will trade and invest with one another, but also for how they will deal with issues like labor standards and the environment." Mr. Fukuyama is not only a left-wing intellectual, but also a CFR and Trilateral Commission member.

The Left’s April 20, 2002 march on Washington gives another excellent example of this strategy in action. Led by members of the Communist Party USA, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist-led U.S. Peace Council and others of similar ilk, the demonstrators demanded increased financial aid for education. The Establishment’s response was immediate, as if it had been prearranged. On April 21 World Bank President James Wolfensohn (CFR) announced that he had heard the cries of the people and his institution would be launching a multi-billion-dollar education fund for poor countries. The next day the CFR-dominated Bush administration announced it would hike U.S. bilateral foreign aid by 50 percent and our funding to the World Bank’s International Development Association by 18 percent over the next three years.

The Miami FTAA conference represented a new watershed in open collaboration between the left-wing activists and the CFR elites at trade summits. While there were a few dozen arrests of radicals in the streets, they served mainly to draw attention away from the fact that there were a great many radicals in the suites, as well. Following the UN’s example of giving radical NGOs semi-official status at international conferences, the FTAA welcomed hundreds of leftists into the America’s Trade and Sustainable Development Forum (ATSDF) that ran concomitantly with the FTAA in the neighboring Clarion and Marriott hotels. The ATSDF conclave featured workshops, panels and presentations from the veteran activists of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the World Resources Institute, Freedom House, the Washington Office on Latin America, the World Bank, Oxfam America, Global Trade Watch and the Migration Policy Institute.

Meanwhile, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney (CFR), leader of the nation’s largest union, brought thousands of steel workers, auto workers, hotel workers and teachers to Miami to keep the pressure boiling from below.

Pincer Strategy Behind the FTAA

By by William F. Jasper Source: The New American, May 21, 2001

Street-level radicals are making it easier for pinstripe revolutionaries to transform their “free trade” rhetoric into regional governance — all according to plan.

The scenes from the Quebec “Summit of the Americas” were all too familiar: presidents, prime ministers, and economic ministers clinking glasses and toasting new victories for “free trade” and “free markets,” while television news programs featured economic commentators, corporate CEOs, and bankers extolling the multiple advantages of a hemispheric trade bloc.

President George W. Bush was the Summit’s headliner, meeting with the heads of 33 other nations of the Western Hemisphere for the launch of a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This new FTAA would represent an expansion of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) from the current three members — Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — to include all countries of the Hemisphere, from “Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.”

Wondrous benefits will accrue to everyone concerned, the FTAA architects promised. Globalization, open borders, and the free movement of people, products, and capital will bring “a rising tide of prosperity that will lift all boats.”

Alongside these scenes were other familiar sights less cordial: marching, chanting, defiant demonstrators; clashes with police, tear gas, riots, fires, violence and anarchy; and an odd mélange of slogans and banners mixing defense of national sovereignty with environmental extremist cant and Marxist rant.

We’ve seen all this before, notably, at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit, now remembered as the infamous “Battle in Seattle.” (See “Organized Anarchy” in the June 19, 2000 issue of TNA.) The Seattle debacle was repeated a few months later at the IMF-World Bank conference in Washington, D.C., then again at the IMF meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, and still again at the European Union summit in Nice, France.

Colossal Charade

It’s a familiar charade formula that we’ve seen over and over again — and, no doubt, will see many more times in the future. Charade? Yes, indeed, a colossal charade operating on several levels. At one level, the charade involves a huge deception by politicians and corporate socialists posing a “free trade agreement” to cover what is, in truth, a revolutionary scheme to destroy national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, regional superstate.* At another level, the charade involves the use of “controlled opposition”: creating or co-opting groups and individuals who will, by their extreme rhetoric and actions, make the FTAA advocates look moderate and reasonable by comparison. Thus the scruffy rent-a-mob radicals who take to the streets at these events, and their more urbane left-wing comrades in academe and Congress who can be counted on to make the wrong arguments and to cave in at the crucial moments.

In this stage-managed charade, the “leading” proponents and opponents are, in reality, the connected, coordinated arms of a deadly pincer attack. They are opposing arms on the same hairy body.

This fact will not be reported by CNN, CBS, PBS, ABC, or in the pages of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. These and other organs of the Establishment press are key elements in sustaining this deceptive and treasonous scheme. The people who run these so-called news organizations have no more intention of reporting the truth than do the Communist editors of the People’s Daily in Beijing.

The purpose of these media organs is not to enlighten, but instead to confuse, to create a great “booming, buzzing confusion” that will distract public attention from the ongoing efforts of the one-world managerial elites who are constructing their global new world order.

The phrase “booming, buzzing confusion” comes from an important article authored by Columbia University law professor and veteran State Department official Richard N. Gardner (most recently, the Clinton administration’s ambassador to Spain). The article was entitled “The Hard Road to World Order,” and appeared in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, a journal which Time magazine calls “the most influential periodical in print.” The influence of Foreign Affairs derives, of course, from the fact that it is the official house organ of the organized one-worlders at the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR.

The “Hard Road” article began with CFR member Richard Gardner’s lamentation that like-minded internationalists had failed to achieve what he termed “instant world government.” He proposed a new and more effective route to the creation of an all-powerful, global superstate, asserting:

In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

Thus the great booming, buzzing confusion we witnessed in Quebec — as in Seattle, Washington, D.C., Prague, Nice, etc. — is a smoke screen to mask the real agenda and the real handlers behind this “bottom up” construction of “world order” through regional blocs.

CFR Plot

A careful examination of this “bottom up” effort quickly reveals that it is directed from the top down. The top in this case, as in so many others, is Pratt House, the CFR headquarters in New York City.

Like the slime trail that leads to a slug, virtually every trail of American policy disaster leads back to the Pratt House globalists.

The Quebec Summit, like the 1994 Summit of the Americas in Miami, where the 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas was launched, was completely a production of the CFR and the Rockefeller family. As we noted in these pages following the Miami event, the Summit of the Americas and the FTAA were conceived, nurtured, and brought to fruition by the Council of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder and honorary chairman), the Americas Society (David Rockefeller, chairman), the Forum of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder), the U.S. Council of the Mexico-U.S. Business Committee (Rodman C. Rockefeller, chairman), the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller, former chairman), the Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller, founder and honorary chairman), the Chase Manhattan Bank (David Rockefeller, former chairman), and the Institute for International Economics (David Rockefeller, financial backer and board member).

The Miami summit had come close on the heels of the globalists’ victorious passage of NAFTA (accomplished thanks to plentiful lying, bribing, arm-twisting, and deceiving). Avid one-worlder Henry Kissinger, a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission and a longtime power in the CFR, called the vote on NAFTA the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Indeed, Kissinger admitted in the Los Angeles Times in 1993 that passage of NAFTA “will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War....” NAFTA “is not a conventional trade agreement,” he said, “but the architecture of a new international system.”

It was not surprising, then, to see representatives from this same Rockefeller-CFR nexus put forward as the media-anointed “experts” on all FTAA matters at Quebec. Foremost among these was C. Fred Bergsten (CFR), executive director of the Institute for International Economics (IIE ) and a former U.S. assistant secretary of the Treasury for international affairs. According to Bergsten, President Bush and the U.S. Congress must push forward on the fast track with the FTAA.

Follow the Money

The IIE, according to Martin Walker of The London Observer, “may be the most influential think-tank on the planet.” Who provides the funds to make this “think-tank” so influential? According to the IIE’s own reports, its major funding comes from the German Marshall Fund and the Ford, Hewlett, Tinker, Starr, and Mellon foundations (to name a few). These are the same globalist foundations that are also funding the folks who were demonstrating and rioting against the WTO, NAFTA, IMF, and FTAA.

A search of the annual reports or the Internet websites of these foundations and/or those of the anti-FTAA radicals, will find, for instance, that Ralph Nader’s Global Trade Watch is also funded by the same CFR-directed foundations that finance the pro-FTAA groups. Nader and his top lieutenant, Lori Wallach, have been designated by the CFR media elites as the prime spokespersons for the anti-FTAA mob. Which is very convenient, since the main Nader-Wallach gripe is that the NAFTA-WTO-FTAA organizations are too conservative, they have not usurped enough powers from the nation states.

This same argument is made by Nader-Wallach comrade John Cavanagh. Cavanagh is director of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the infamous, hardcore Marxist network that has been wired into the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro’s DGI since the 1960s. On April 17th, as the Quebec Summit was preparing to open, Cavanagh appeared on an FTAA press briefing panel sponsored by the CFR. According to Cavanagh, the NAFTA-WTO-FTAA regimes can only be legitimized if they take on supra-national powers over environmental, labor, education and health issues, as well as trade.

Echoing the Nader-Wallach-Cavanagh line are a host of radical enviro-fanatics, all of whom receive beaucoup funding and friendly media treatment from the same Pratt House-dominated foundations and media organs. Check the “news” stories and websites for the Rainforest Action Network, Earth First!, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc., and you will understand why these “Watermelon Marxists” (green on the outside, red on the inside) continue to get the CFR funding and media promotion.

In a 1990 interview with E Magazine, David Brower, known as the “Archdruid” of the radical greens, explained the subversive process of constantly moving debate, public perceptions, and policy ever leftward: “The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”

But Brower didn’t wait. This Establishment-blessed watermelon Marxist helped launch the more radical Rainforest Action Network, run by his old Earth First! comrade Mike Roselle. And Roselle has gone on to form the anarchist Ruckus Society — which played a prominent role in the demonstrations in Seattle and Quebec. All of which is intended to make venerable green Bolsheviks like Brower look eminently reasonable — and power-grabbing CFR one-worlders appear positively conservative by comparison.

* Fantastic? No, this is exactly the strategy that was employed in Europe in order to create what is now known as the European Union and is now widely recognized as a developing regional government. But the EU, recall, was once known as the “Common Market” and was once sold to unsuspecting Europeans as a “free trade” arrangement. The architects of world order view the Common Market-EU as the perfect model for NAFTA-FTAA — except that they hope to accomplish in several years’ time with NAFTA-FTAA what has taken five decades with the Common Market-EU. A more extensive history and documentation of this Insider game plan was recently provided in this magazine (see “Global Tyranny … Bloc by Bloc,” by William F. Jasper, in the April 9th issue of TNA).

Globalization’s False Opposition

By William F. Jasper Source: The New American, May 20, 2002
A coalition of radical subversives led by the Communist Party is spearheading a deceptive campaign to empower the UN and its global institutions.
On April 20th-23rd tens of thousands of radical activists converged on Washington, D.C. It was the latest in a string of street theater extravaganzas demonstrating the revolutionary pincer strategy of “pressure from above” and “pressure from below” being employed to systematically dismantle our constitutional safeguards, undermine national sovereignty, and transfer billions of dollars to international institutions. According to the Establishment media, the protesters who converged on D.C., estimated at 50,000-70,000 strong, were mostly determined idealists, opposed to globalization, the war on terrorism, and U.S. Middle East policies.
In truth, the motley mob of militants was led by a coalition spearheaded by the Communist Party, USA and a coterie of veteran extremists hardwired into the global terror network (as well as the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI) for decades. Most important — and completely unmentioned in the major media reports — is that these street radicals provided the pressure, public distraction, and political camouflage necessary for their supposed opponents at the World Bank to launch a global socialist program in the name of education and yet another bailout of the “former” Soviet Union. While pretending to oppose globalization, the Communist Party leadership and other leaders of the radical Left are agitating incessantly for the ultimate globalization: the transfer of ever more and more power and money to the United Nations and its global institutions.
Reds at the Helm
The marches and protests accompanying the meetings of the World Trade Organization, the G-8, and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have become expected, ritual events. The anti-WTO demonstration that turned into a violent riot in Seattle in 1999 was followed by more violence at the IMF summit in April 2000. Washington, D.C., police arrested nearly 1,300 demonstrators during that melee. Confrontations outside the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy, last year resulted in extensive property damage, hundreds of arrests and injuries, and one death — an Italian protester shot while attacking the police. The recent convergence on Washington ended without violence, but to those familiar with the track records of the organizations and individuals leading this organized chaos, it is obvious that a return to 1960s-style fires, bombs, barricades, and riots is looming.
The Communist leadership role in the escalating street demonstrations has been steadily becoming more apparent. However, the Establishment media has consciously censored this significant information from its coverage. The main sponsors of the April 20th demonstrations were the April 20 Mobilization to Stop the War and International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism).
According to an Associated Press story for April 13th announcing the upcoming event, the April 20 Mobilization is merely a “coalition of more than 100 groups including student and labor organizations. They say they oppose the war on terrorism as a ‘war without end.’” And the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R. are “a coalition that began with a broad anti-war theme, but has now focused more on the Mideast conflict, supporting the Palestinians and opposing U.S. aid to Israel.” CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the mainstream media have followed suit with equally benign — and deceptive — descriptions.
It doesn’t take any exceptional sleuthing to dig up the real story on the organizers. According to the April 20 Mobilization’s website, its endorsers include: the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA); the Young Communist League; the Communist Party of Slovakia Bratislava; and many well-known Communist front groups. A quick click of the mouse takes you to the Communist Party’s website and the “April 20 Party Memo” issued on March 23rd by Elena Mora, the CPUSA’s national organization secretary. The Communist Party memo reads:

Dear comrades,
As you know, on April 20th, the first large national demonstration against the Bush administration’s war policy will take place in Washington, DC. This event could not be more timely, nor more important.... The April 20th demonstration should be a big priority for everyone....
We helped initiate the April 20th Coalition … which is organizing the rally.... The main issue is mobilizing grassroots participation in the March on Washington....
We aim to have a big, energetic, colorful presence in Washington on April 20th.

Rogues’ Gallery of the Left
The radical gang at International A.N.S.W.E.R. is more cagey about the coalition’s true colors, but it doesn’t take much political sophistication to recognize the group’s Red pedigree. The Communist Party has always recognized the importance of concealing its activities and true objectives by operating through a plethora of front organizations. Besides obscuring Communist leadership and direction, the “united front” tactic also serves another vital complementary purpose: projecting the false impression of popular support for Communist causes. Please bear with us, then, over the next couple pages, as we unmask the labyrinthine network of subversives leading this dangerous charade.
Headquartered in New York City, A.N.S.W.E.R. lists its address as: 39 East 14th Street, #206. That also happens to be the address of the International Action Center (IAC), listed as one of the 10 groups on A.N.S.W.E.R.’s Steering Committee. So A.N.S.W.E.R. turns out to be simply a front for the IAC, itself little more than a front for the Communist Party. Founded by radical activist Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, the IAC is connected at the hip with nearly every anti-American, pro-Communist outfit imaginable. The IAC’s publications and web site praise Fidel Castro and adoringly reproduce his speeches. Following Fidel’s lead, the IAC has launched a campaign to “Free the Five Cuban Heroes.” Who are these “heroes”? Why, the five agents of Castro’s DGI convicted last year on charges of penetrating U.S. military bases in Florida, of course. One of the “heroes” was also convicted of participation in the 1996 murder/shoot-down of four Cuban-Americans in civilian planes over international airspace. But the IAC refers to the killer/spies as “political prisoners.” The IAC is also a leading voice in the “Free Mumia Abu-Jamal” choir. Mumia Abu-Jamal is the convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther who has become the poster child of the international Left. Ramsey Clark’s IAC also took Communist China’s side last year when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane and crew were held hostage. Recall that a PRC fighter first collided with the Navy plane and then another Chinese fighter forced it to land in China.
Other groups on the A.N.S.W.E.R. Steering Committee nearly as crimson-hued as IAC include: the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization/Pastors for Peace; the Korea Truth Commission; the Mexico Solidarity Network; the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada; the Nicaragua Network; and the Partnership for Civil Justice.
The Korea Truth Commission (KTC) is the outfit comprised of Communists and other international radical activists charging American military personnel with war crimes during the Korean War. As with most of the other groups in the A.N.S.W.E.R./IAC coalition, the KTC is heavily salted with radical attorneys from the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), an official endorser of A.N.S.W.E.R.
In 1950, the House Committee on Un-American Activities described the NLG as “the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party, its front organizations and controlled unions.” The NLG’s activities in the past five decades have surely reinforced that depiction of the group. The NLG has been intimately and openly involved with Fidel Castro, as well as with such terrorist groups as the Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Puerto Rican Armed Forces of National Liberation.
The Washington Post reported on April 21st concerning the previous day’s protests: “One all-important telephone number — 202-462-9627 — was inked onto many arms; it’s the number those arrested are to call. Legal support was being provided at the number by a local law collective, the National Lawyers Guild, and D.C.-based Partnership for Civil Justice.”
Prominent NLG radicals endorse the coalition, such as Executive Director Heidi Boghosian, Los Angeles Executive Director James Lafferty, and Professor Peter Erlinder, a former NLG national president. As expected, wherever an NLG weevil infestation is found, subversives from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) are swarming nearby. The IPS, a radical brain trust with long ties to the Soviet KGB and almost every Communist regime in the world, is right at the heart of the coalitions sponsoring the April 20 Mobilization and other related activities.
Phyllis Bennis, a radical author and “IPS Fellow on the New Internationalism,” addressed the April 20th demonstrators from the Capitol steps. Michael Parenti, a longtime IPS apparatchik, is listed as an A.N.S.W.E.R. endorser. Sanho Tree, director of IPS’ Drug Policy Project, spoke at the April 20th D.C. rally, as did Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, an IPS clone. Another IPS veteran, Tariq Ali, also addressed the demonstrators. The Los Angeles Times identified Mr. Ali simply as “a Pakistani playwright.” He is much more than that, of course. Besides his longtime efforts for the IPS and its affiliated Transnational Institute, Tariq Ali was also a top member of the executive committee of the Fourth International, the worldwide Trotskyite terrorist apparatus.
Comrade Ali has made many interesting statements endorsing violence, even assassination. He has said, for instance: “I think that to achieve the ends we believe in to the establishment of a Socialist republic, I believe that a certain element of violence is absolutely necessary.” The Socialist Workers Party, the violent U.S. branch of the Comrade Ali’s Fourth International, has stated: “As Marxists, we do not believe in individual terror because it underrates the class struggle. We instead believe in increasing the struggle, in mass terrorism!”
Other hardcore Marxists in the April 20 Mobilization ranks include Sandinistas from Nicaragua, Zapatistas from Mexico, Weather Underground terrorist supporters from the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, and Maoist cadres from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).
The April 24th edition of Revolutionary Worker, published by the RCP, provided this report on the April 20th demonstrations in D.C.:

As we marched off, a white youth with dreads wearing a bandana told us, “Communists, anarchists, Palestinians — it’s all the same. We’re all oppressed by f****** capitalism.... They kill our planet, they kill our animals, they kill us. It’s not right, and we’re here to show that everyone is in solidarity with each other, and that the poor people of the globe are not gonna take it anymore.”
Anti-capitalist protesters carried pictures of the flag covered with blood and dollar bills with the slogan “Capitalism Kills.” At the Capitol, anti-capitalist guerrilla theater activists unfurled a huge U.S. flag onto the ground for people to step on. Revolutionaries and internationalists stood on the flag and did exposure about the role of the U.S. in oppressing the people worldwide.

Media Censorship
Virtually all of the information mentioned above was censored from the mainstream media accounts of the April 20th demonstrations. Yet, without knowing these pertinent facts one cannot evaluate properly the significance of the events and put them in the proper context. Very few members of the general public and all too few of the authorities tasked with watching over our internal security will be able to recognize that the activists engaged in the street demonstrations are carrying out a sinister, hidden agenda. The leaders of the “anti-globalization/anti-war” operations are not mere “liberals” or “peace activists,” but seasoned Communist operatives, agents of hostile foreign powers.
The U.S. Peace Council, the American cell of the World Peace Council (WPC), worked closely with the coalition that sponsored the April 20th events. The WPC is one of the oldest Moscow-directed Communist fronts still operating globally. WPC operatives, acting under the control of the KGB and its renamed successors, have been involved in espionage, disinformation, penetration, and terrorism for decades, while the WPC and its national affiliates have served as the principal spearhead of the Kremlin’s “peace” and disarmament movements. Mikhail Suslov, the Politburo member in charge of the Soviet peace offensive from the Stalin era until into the 1980s, told the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) in 1949:

Particular attention should be devoted to drawing into the peace movement trade unions, women’s, youth, sport, cultural, education, religious, and other organizations, and also scientists, writers, journalists, cultural workers, parliamentary, and other political and public leaders.

The WPC, the U.S. Peace Council, and the above-mentioned Communist front organizations and activists have been carrying out Suslov’s Cominform directive for over five decades. They supported the Communist Vietcong during the Vietnam War, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the African National Congress in South Africa, and virtually every other terrorist “liberation” movement on the planet. They have led the “nuclear freeze” movement and every other campaign aimed at crippling America’s national defense and internal security capabilities. The structure, activity, and operational pattern of this subversive network have not diminished since the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union; in fact, its operations have been broadening, multiplying, and intensifying. The continuity — of direction, personnel, and modus operandi — is remarkable, yet none of the media opinion cartel has bothered to remark on it.
Failing to provide the public with this vitally important information is not the result of ignorance on the part of our media mandarins, but of conscious censorship. The censorship command center is “Rockefeller Central” in New York City, otherwise known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR is a prime axis of “convergence,” where billionaire capitalists (actually corporate socialists) and revolutionary Marxists — internationalists all — hatch and implement their schemes for a dystopian new world order. The CFR elite includes longtime radicals in the Institute for Policy Studies/Communist Party network such as Leslie Gelb (CFR president), Morton Halperin, Anthony Lake, Richard Barnet, Cora Weiss, Jeremy Stone, David Aaron, Karl Inderfurth, Patricia Derian, Karen DeYoung, George McGovern, Johnnetta Cole, Richard Falk, Paul Warnke, Daniel Ellsberg, Gregory Treverton, and Roger Wilkins. Their fellow CFR members in corporate America, the tax-exempt foundations, academia, media, and government provide them and their revolutionary cohorts with the funds, respectability, platforms, and political protection necessary to carry out their subversion.
Subversive Objectives
The April 20th demonstrations, like so many others preceding them, served a number of purposes for this convergence cabal, among which are:

Providing “pressure from below” with demands that more U.S. taxpayer dollars be funneled through the World Bank, ostensibly for education in poor countries.
Co-opting the opposition to the unconstitutional and destructive policies of the Bush administration and the CFR elite concerning globalization, the war on terrorism, and the Middle East.
Polarizing the American public into pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian camps to facilitate the Marxist dialectical process.
Training new revolutionary street cadres for the coming “period of escalating violence” — including more terrorism — as prescribed by Lenin.

Prior to the April 20th demonstrations, the Communist Party, USA and April 20 Mobilization to Stop the War announced that the demonstrators would demand a “U.S. foreign policy based upon social and economic justice” and “increased funding for non-military-based financial aid for education.” Presto! No sooner demanded than given. On April 21st World Bank President James Wolfensohn (CFR) announced that his institution had approved an ambitious, multi-billion dollar commitment to fund education “reform” initiatives in poor countries. The following day the CFR-dominated Bush administration announced that the U.S. would hike its bilateral foreign aid by 50 percent and our funding to the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) by 18 percent over the next three years. This Clintonesque exploitation of poor children — to justify robbing American taxpayers to fund the socialist agenda of the UN one-worlders — was greeted with applause and huzzahs, naturally, by the CFR media trust.
The diversionary demonstrations and the new global education program almost completely obscured the World Bank announcement on April 20th of another round of bailouts for seven countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), formerly known as the Soviet Union. All seven — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan — are socialist basket cases run by unreconstructed Communists. The World Bank and IMF have not specified how many billions of dollars will be dished out in this scheme, but when it comes time to release the funds, other diversions will undoubtedly be ready to distract the American taxpayers about to be fleeced.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FTAA — Castro’s Brainchild

And why shouldn’t Communist Cuba be a full-fledged FTAA member? After all, Comrade Fidel can legitimately lay claim to being one of the earliest proponents of this Marxist-Leninist concept, decades before the rest of us even heard of such a thing. Less than five months after taking control of Cuba, the bearded dictator advocated the creation of a common market for the Western Hemisphere. In a speech delivered on May 2, 1959 to an inter-American economic conference in Buenos Aires, Castro urged the United States to join in the creation of a so-called Latin American common market. He proposed that the U.S. provide $30 billion in credit over 10 years for the economic development of Latin America.

Incredibly, Castro’s proposal became U.S. policy. Herbert Matthews, Fidel’s leading champion at the New York Times, later wrote of Castro’s Buenos Aires speech: "The American delegation dismissed the idea with amused contempt. But less than two years later President Kennedy put forward the proposal for his Alliance for Progress, pledging $10 billion for the first ten years. Later President Johnson promised another $10 billion for the first ten years."

What we are now witnessing as the unfolding FTAA began as a revolutionary program of the Kennedy administration under the lofty sounding title of Alliance for Progress. The Alliance for Progress, designed on the pattern of the Marshall Plan, was established to funnel billions of foreign aid dollars to socialist parties and Communist movements in Latin America, with the aim of melding all of the region’s countries into a common market, just as the Marshall Planners had done after World War II in Europe.

Stripped of its phony rhetoric about "free markets," Castro’s support of a regional common market makes perfect sense; it is in complete accord with Communist strategy. "Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to world government," Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wrote in his book Marxism and the National Question. "Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship...."

-------------

Historian Arthur Schlesinger described in his book A Thousand Days some of what he witnessed as a participant in that process. Schlesinger, a radical Fabian Socialist and New Dealer, recalled a Washington, D.C., meeting President John F. Kennedy and some of his advisers had with Dr. Cheddi Jagan, the Communist leader of Guyana. Kennedy and Jagan found much common ground, especially in their mutual admiration of one of Britain’s leading Fabian Socialist icons, Professor Harold Laski. Schlesinger writes:

Recalling Jagan’s words of admiration for Harold Laski on Meet the Press, Kennedy observed that he himself had studied for a term under Laski at the London School of Economics and that his older brother had visited the Soviet Union with him. Jagan replied that the first book of Laski’s he had read was The American Presidency; he considered himself, he added, a Bevanite. We all responded agreeably to this, citing Bevan’s … belief that the struggle of the future would be between democratic socialism and Communism....

Kennedy’s Latin American policy, crafted by his CFR brain trust, was based on this premise that the Western Hemisphere — and mankind in general — had only two viable options: socialism or Communism. It was a continuation of the CFR-hatched policies that had steered post-war Europe along the socialist track. To give this revolutionary plan a respectable face, the Kennedy administration resorted to a common ploy of governments, as well as institutions that aspire to govern: It set up a "task force" on Latin American policy. The man chosen to head the task force was Adolph Berle (CFR), a New Deal lawyer who implemented President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s "good neighbor" policy and later served as U.S. ambassador to Brazil.

Berle’s task force issued a report in 1961 that laid out what became, essentially, the FTAA program. It recommended that the United States support "a long-range economic plan for the whole hemisphere." This plan should provide "integrated development programs covering several years in advance, prepared first on a national basis … and then combined into a region-wide effort." The Berle report urged the U.S. to end its "doctrinaire opposition" to socialism and revolutionary movements and to encourage "diverse social systems in different countries." U.S. military force should not be used, it said, to "stabilize the dying reactionary situations." By which the authors clearly meant that anti-Communist allies in Latin America should not be assisted when under attack by Soviet-sponsored "progressive" forces. These "reactionary" regimes were presumed to be corrupt by virtue of the simple fact that they did not embrace socialism. However, according to the task force, the U.S. military may be justifiably deployed to aid a Leftist regime pursuing the socialist holy grail.

The Kennedy-Berle plan was officially launched as the Alliance for Progress at the Inter-American Economic and Social Council conference in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in August 1961. The U.S. representative at the summit, C. Douglas Dillon (a longtime CFR director and vice chairman of the board), found himself facing opposition to the scheme from virtually every country — except Castro’s Cuba. Schlesinger noted this was because "Cuba was in sympathy with many of the Alliance’s objectives...." Castro recognized the pro-Communist reality beneath the Kennedy administration’s anti-Communist rhetoric. Thus, says Schlesinger, "Word soon went round the conference that there were only ‘two left-wing governments present — Cuba and the United States.’..."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.