• 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