Revolution and Repression in America

Email Print

by Andrew Gavin Marshall: Debt
Dynamite Dominoes: TheComing FinancialCatastrophe




As outlined
in Part 1 of this series, “The
Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom
,” there
are two major geopolitical realities in the world today, both largely
brought about as a result of the “Technological Revolution”
in which technology and electronics have come to define and shape
our society.

The Technological
Revolution has led to a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, and
conflicting geopolitical reality: never before has humanity been
so awakened to issues of power, exploitation, imperialism and domination;
and simultaneously, never before have elites been so transnational
and global in orientation, and with the ability to impose such a
truly global system of scientific despotism and political oppression.
These are the two major geopolitical realities of the world today.
Never in all of human history has mankind been so capable of achieving
a true global political psycho-social awakening; nor has humanity
ever been in such danger of being subjected to a truly global scientific
totalitarianism, potentially more oppressive than any system known
before, and without a doubt more technologically capable of imposing
a permanent despotism upon humanity. So we are filled with hope,
but driven by urgency. In all of human history, never has the potential
nor the repercussions of human actions and ideas ever been so monumental.

Not only is
the awakening global in its reach, but in its very nature. It creates
within the individual, an awareness of the global condition. So
it is a ‘global awakening’ both in the external environment,
and in the internal psychology. This new reality in the world, coupled
with the fact that the world’s population has never been so
vast, presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people
all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of
social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism
and domination. This directly implies that these populations will
be significantly more challenging to control: economically, politically,
socially, psychologically and spiritually. Thus, from the point
of view of the global oligarchy, the only method of imposing order
and control – on this unique and historical human condition
– is through the organized chaos of economic crises, war, and
the rapid expansion and institutionalization of a global scientific
dictatorship. Our hope is their fear; and our greatest fear is their
only hope.

This essay
(Part II) will undertake an examination of these two geopolitical
realities on a national scale, focusing primarily on the “American

The American

In the past
decade, there has been an enormous surge in popular political activism,
which has corresponded to the expansion of imperialism, exploitation
and despotism in the world. The events of September 11th, 2001,
sparked two major geopolitical events. The first was the implementation
of the Bush Doctrine – the “War on Terror” –
which was organized in response to the terrorist attacks. This imperialist
expansion led to the war and occupation of Afghanistan, the war
on Iraq and subsequent occupation, the war in Lebanon in 2006, the
war on Somalia, continuing military expansionism and imposition
in the Palestinian territories, as well as expansive covert operations
in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and around the world.

The second
major geopolitical trend instigated by the 9/11 attacks was the
formation of what has come to be known as the “9/11 Truth Movement,”
in which millions of people around the world, including thousands
of academics, architects, engineers, government officials, intelligence
and military officials and other professionals, as well as an exponentially
growing abundance of people in the general population internationally
have sought to question and challenge the official accounts of the
events of 9/11. Like all activist groups, there are fringe and radical
elements within the movement, those who claim that “no planes”
were used in the attacks, or that the attacks were undertaken by
Israel – with anti-Semitic undertones – or other such
fringe theories. Regardless of the fringe elements, the main focus
of the movement is based around the fact that the official story
of events does not stand up to any form of independent and unbiased,
rational analysis. The media for years ignored the growing international
movement, but only in recent years have acknowledged the movement;
however, they did not address the movement by analyzing the information
and issues, but rather by seeking to discredit and demonize the
political movement, focusing on the fringe elements and beliefs
and applying labels of “conspiracy theorist,” attempting
to discredit anyone who questions the official story.

In 2006, Time
Magazine acknowledged that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not a “fringe
movement,” but is, in fact, “a mainstream political reality.”
They also cited a major political poll by Scripps-Howard in 2006,
which revealed that 36% of Americans think it is “very likely”
or “somewhat likely” that government officials either
allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks

The growth
of this movement spurred on major new movements and political activism,
driven almost exclusively by organized and ‘politically awakened’
civilians. Driven largely by the Internet, this movement has awakened
a mass of people globally to the political and strategic reality
of what is known – in military terms – as a “false
flag operation,” in which an attack is carried out against
a certain target, where those undertaking the attack fly the flag
of someone else (i.e., “false flag”) in an effort to implicate
them in the attack; and thus the response to an attack would be
against the perceived attackers. It is, essentially, a covert military
stratagem: a strategic deception. The Greek dramatist and playwright
Aeschylus wrote that, “In war, the first casualty is truth.”
A false flag attack is an act of war that is deliberately designed
to deceive and hide the truth. It is an attack carried out and blamed
on one’s enemy in order to justify implementing a political
agenda. Governments have used such tactics for centuries, and especially
western nations in the past half-century.

This movement
has spawned an activist resurgence in other global issues, such
as the global economic system, and most notably, the central banking
system, particularly the Federal Reserve. While many Americans knew
next to nothing about their central bank, the Federal Reserve, a
growing movement of Americans and others around the world were educating
themselves about the Federal Reserve System and the global banking
system in general. Many found a leader in a Texas Congressman named
Ron Paul, who campaigned on the Republican ticket for President
in 2008, and who drew the widest grassroots support from across
the nation of any Republican candidates. Among Democrats, “9/11
Truthers” and others critical of US foreign policy came to
find a passionate leader in Cynthia McKinney, who was one of the
lone voices in Congress to directly challenge the Bush administration
on the official version of events, and has challenged the election
fraud in 2000 and 2004, conducted a Congressional hearing on covert
activities in Africa, exposing the hand of western nations behind
the Rwandan genocide and Congo Civil War.

In late 2008,
as the government began its financial bailout of the banks, the
“End the Fed” movement emerged in sporadic protests at
the 12 Federal Reserve Banks located around the country, and over
40 protests took place across the nation within a matter of months.

The “Homeland
Security State” Targets Dissenters

With the increasing
militarization of foreign policy, we also see the increasing militarization
of domestic politics, and most notably the emergence of a high-tech
surveillance police state: a “Homeland Security State.”
National and international elites are in the process of incrementally
constructingv a u201Cnew totalitarianismu201D in replacing democracy. Civil
rights and freedoms are dismantled through anti-terrorist legislation,
wiretapping and internet surveillance are rampant and expansive,
“watch lists” are constructed, which often include the
names of dissenters, and the military is increasingly poised to
partake in policing. Further, over the past decade, we have seen
the rapid expansion of “Continuity of Government” (COG)
plans, which plan for the suspension of the Constitution and imposition
of martial law in the event of an emergency. At this point in American
society, if there was a rapid and expansive economic collapse or
another major terrorist attack on US soil, America would transform
into a military government, more fascist in nature than anything;
but equipped with an arsenal and “technetronic” police
state the likes of which no dictator in history has had access to.
Freedom has never been so threatened; yet, people have never been
so mobilized in modern history to challenge the threats to freedom
and democracy in America, in the west, and in the world.

In 2003, General
Tommy Franks gave an interview with Cigar Aficionado magazine in
which he elaborated on this concept. Tommy Franks was the former
Commander of the Pentagon’s Central Command over the Middle
East, and thus he was the top General overseeing the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq. In his interview with the magazine, Franks stated that
the objective of terrorism is “to change the mannerisms, the
behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society,”
and thus, in the event of another major terrorist attack in America
or in the West:

the western
world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that
is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years
in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical
sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon
of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing
event somewhere in the western world – it may be in the United
States of America – that causes our population to question
our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in
order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event.
Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric
of our Constitution.

One interesting
facet that very little is known about in the militarization of domestic
society and incremental totalitarianism is how the coercive state
apparatus, while being justified under the guise of fighting terrorism
or “protecting the Homeland,” is in fact being directed
against citizen activists and popular political movements. For example,
following 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security established
what are known as “Fusion Centers,” set up all over the
United States, and which are designed as “information sharing
and collecting” hubs, in which agencies like the CIA, FBI,
Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the US Military collect
and analyze information together. As of July 2009, there were 72
acknowledged Fusion Centers around the United States. Think of them
as local surveillance centers, because that’s what they are.

Fusion Centers
are also positioned to take part as local command centers in the
event of a national emergency or implementation of “Continuity
of Government” plans to declare martial law. State and local
law enforcement agencies provide the majority of information to
the local Fusion Centers, which is then analyzed and disseminated
to the major intelligence, military or Homeland Security departments
and agencies. However, in recent years, Fusion Centers have been
criticized for their purported agenda, as they are justified on
the basis of acting as centers designated for “counter-terrorism”
purposes, but in practice are directed against citizen groups.

In the spring
of 2009, it was revealed that the Missouri Information Analysis
Center (MIAC) – a Fusion Center – had put out an information
pamphlet designed to help law enforcement officials identify “potential
domestic terrorists.” According to the report:

If you’re
an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia
supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member
of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well
might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

When did our
society become something out of 1984? When did our governments designate
“subversive literature” as a sign of terrorism? The report
classified such activities as being part of a “Modern Militia
Movement,” and further identified “potential threats to
American security” as:

People who
supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas
Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr
are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists
and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico
and Canada will someday form a North American Union.

In other words,
those who are opposed to the political and economic process of “North
American integration” are seen and identified as “potential
militia members.” The report even directly identified possession
of such films like the anti-Federal Reserve film, “America:
Freedom to Fascism” as “potential signals of militia involvement.”
The document put out by the Fusion Center further warned law enforcement
officials to be “on the lookout” for “bumper stickers
advertising third party candidates, or people with copies of the
United States Constitution.” The report wrote that due to the
economic crisis, “a lush environment for militia activity has
been created,” and:

It goes on
to cite possible militia members as people who talk about the
New World Order conspiracy, express anger with the Federal Reserve
banking system, resist paying taxes, warn other citizens about
the perceived dangers of radio frequency identification (RFID)
or lobby for a return to strict constitutionalism as possible
threats to law enforcement.

While the
memo does offer something of a lopsided summary of many of the
various groups which swelled enormously following the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it also links individuals who are otherwise
peaceful with the Ku Klux Klan and other violent organizations.

Another Fusion
Center in Virginia identified many universities as potential “radicalization
nodes” for terrorists, singling out “historically black
colleges” as potential threats, and “it also contains
an extensive list of peaceful American and International activist
groups from nearly all cross-sections of political engagement, placing
them side-by-side with groups that have long been known for resorting
to violence.”

In April of
2009, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) released a report
on the threat to liberties and civil rights posed by the Fusion
Centers, saying that, “Fusion centers have experienced a mission
creep in the last several years, becoming more of a threat than
a security device. With no overarching guidelines to restrict or
direct them, these centers put Americans’ privacy at huge risk.”
The ACLU report identified several “troubling incidents”
in regards to Fusion Centers violating privacy and civil rights:

  • A May 7,
    2008 report entitled “Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat
    Assessment” authored by a private contractor that labeled
    environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society
    and the Audubon Society as “mainstream organizations with
    known or possible links to eco-terrorism”;
  • A potential
    abuse of authority by DHS officials who improperly monitored and
    disseminated the communications of peace activists affiliated
    with the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN);
  • A report
    produced on February 19, 2009 by the North Central Texas Fusion
    System entitled “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” which
    described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations,
    lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, the U.S. Treasury Department,
    hip hop bands and former Congresswoman and presidential candidate
    Cynthia McKinney to “provide an environment for terrorist
    organizations to flourish”;
  • A “Strategic
    Report” produced February 20, 2009 by the Missouri Information
    Analysis Center that described a purported security threat posed
    by the “modern militia movement” but inappropriately
    included references to social, religious and political ideologies,
    including support of third party presidential candidates such
    as Congressman Ron Paul and former Congressman Bob Barr; and
  • A “Protective
    Intelligence Bulletin” issued by the DHS Intelligence Branch
    of the Threat Management Division of the Federal Protective Service
    which improperly collected and disseminated information regarding
    political demonstrations and inappropriately labeled peaceful
    advocacy groups and other activists as “extremists.”

To those in
power, u201Cpeaceu201D is an u201Cextremistu201D idea, because u201Cwaru201D and u201Cviolenceu201D
are the norms to them. Now it has come to the point where those
who challenge the structures of power are simply designated as terrorists
and extremists. This is an incredibly dangerous political road at
which the end is despotism and the death of democracy. Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney, as one of those identified by Fusion Centers as
providing “an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish,”
had this to say about the Fusion Center report:

As a student
of COINTELPRO, the government’s infamous Counter-Intelligence
Program [directed against the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s],
I know what my government is capable of doing to quash dissent.
That’s why I voted against the Patriot Act, worked in Congress
to roll back the Secret Evidence Act, and introduced legislation
to repeal the Military Commissions Act. I come from a long legacy
of activists for justice and freedom inside this country. I am
on the advocacy front lines for peace abroad and justice at home.
But I know that we will not have peace or justice without truth.
Truth is the foundation of the dignity that we seek. Dignity for
all is not a threat to the United States.

It has become
evident that the response of the American government to the “global
political awakening” within the United States is aimed at demonizing,
discrediting, and oppressing activist groups and political movements.
But how far can this oppression go?

Camps for Dissidents?

One startling
and deeply concerning development in the area of “Homeland
Security” is the highly secretive and deliberately quiet establishment
of “detention centers” within the United States, designed
to house millions of people in the event of an “emergency.”
In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft “announced [a] desire
for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be ‘enemy combatants’,”
and that his plan “would allow him to order the indefinite
incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their
constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them
enemy combatants.”

Also in 2002,
it was reported that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(now under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security),
was “moving ahead with plans to create temporary cities that
could handle millions of Americans after mass destruction attacks
on U.S. cities.” Newsmax reported that, “FEMA was seeking
bids from three major real estate and/or engineering firms to help
prepare for the creation of the emergency cities, using tents and
trailers – if an urban area is attacked by NBC (nuclear, chemical
or biological) weapons.”

In 2006, Dick
Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, and its subsidiary company,
Kellogg-Brown & Root (KBR) received a major contract from the
Department of Homeland Security worth $385 million, which was given
“to support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event
of an emergency.” A press release on KBR’s website stated

The contract,
which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary
detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the
event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to
support the rapid development of new programs.

Further, it
stated that, “The contract may also provide migrant detention
support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an
immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react
to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event
of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing
housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in
support of relief efforts.”

the rest of the article

13, 2010

Andrew Gavin
Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy
and History at Simon Fraser University.

Email Print