The Shock Doctrine

Torture or brainwashing to destroy the personality of the subject by administeringvarious shocks (chemicals, electric shock) to finally get him to say or accept anything… It’s possible yes!

Based on extensive literature searches, Naomi Klein argues that in the same way, disasters such as natural disasters or changes in plans, leading to psychological trauma, allowing singers to apply capitalist economic reforms ultra-liberal such as privatization of the energy or social security.

Such reforms are not possible without crisis. The people would revolt if notimmediately …
In the documentary “The Shock Doctrine” Naomi Klein uses as examples of his thesis dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia and other South American dictatorships in general with the batch of torture that accompany them.

Policies that were performed in the United States since 1990, but particularly under the Bush administration, are particularly targeted, including the progressive privatization of security in the United States. This led him to become interested inthe management of the war in Iraq. For her, there has since September 11, 2001 to the emergence of an industry of Homeland Security: the clash of civilizations, the axis of evil and the war on terrorism.
This war was unwinnable abstract and huge economic benefits. Prior to 2001, internal security [U.S. note] was not an industry. Today, it brews more money thanthe entire film and music. Between September 11, 2001 and 2006, the Departmentof Homeland Security has provided $ 130 billion of contracts to private companies.This is the disaster capitalism complex, a new economy built on fear.

This is what the strategy of shock: systematic raids against the public sphere in the wake of disasters. When people are too focused on the urgency of their survival, to protect their own interests.

Source : Vcom Freedom


Egypt’s “Facebook Revolution”: Looking Under the Lamp Post?


The “Facebook Revolution” narrative of the Egyptian rebellion is everywhere.
A few examples: Jared Cohen calls digital media an “accelerant” (>>); Don Tapscott (>>) writes that the protests are “Enabled by social media”; Fox News says that Facebook has “Turned Our Entire World Upside Down: Right before our eyes we see Facebook’s effects” (>>); Micah Sifry writes at CNN that “Without the relatively free arena of online social networking sites and tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, young Egyptians like Ghonim could not have built the resilient and creative force that finally toppled Hosni Mubarak.” (>>)
Most compellingly, here is high profile Egyptian activist Wael Ghonim:

I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him… I’m talking on behalf of Egypt. This revolution started online. This revolution started on Facebook. This revolution started in June 2010 when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians started collaborating content. We would post a video on Facebook that would be shared by 60,000 people on their walls within a few hours. I always said that if you want to liberate a society just give them the Internet. If you want to have a free society just give them the Internet.” (>>)

and also: “This is the revolution of the youth of the internet, and now the revolution of all Egyptians.”
Narratives matter. We use them to make sense of the world, and we use that understanding to make decisions. Narrative is “the simple order that consists in being able to say: ‘When that had happened, then this happened.’ We like the illusions of this sequence, its acceptable appearance of causality: it has the look of necessity.” (Frank Kermode, “The Sense of an Ending”, p127.)
So is the Egyptian rebellion a “Facebook Revolution”? There are reasons to think the narrative is exaggerated…

The easiest people to talk to

Most obviously, it is much easier to talk to English speaking participants than non-English speakers. English speakers are far more likely to be part of the one-fifth or so of the country that has access to the Internet. (World Bank Development Indicators). And it is easy to contact people over the Internet, so we hear from people who are on the Internet. It is easy to follow Twitter feeds, so we hear Egyptian tweets.

The easiest story to tell

It isn’t just the sources, though. The Facebook Revolution narrative is an interesting story to tell to a contemporary Western audience. For us, a story built around the familiar yet novel world of Facebook and social media is an easy way into the Egyptian rebellion. How many of us know much about the specifics of Egypt’s history, its recent past, or the economic sources of discontent? It is a much quicker and lighter story to say “look at the Facebook page.” We can even go and look at it ourselves (>>). Talking about strikes is more likely to lose an audience.
So every time prominent activist Wael Ghonim is mentioned, he is described as a “Google executive Wael Ghonim” even though he has explicitly said that “Google has nothing to do with this” (>>). Do we hear the employer of any of the other leaders? April 6 Movement founders Asmaa Mahfouz, Ahmed Maher and Ahmed Salah are commonly described as “activists”. It is possible to track down Maher’s occupation as a “civil engineer”, but with no employer. The discrepancy is glaring, and so Google gets to be associated with the uprising, adding to the digital tone of the story.

Underreported players

As people look back for the roots of the rebellion, the April 6 Movement and the We Are Khaled Said Facebook page have received much of the attention. But there are other strands that fed into the protests. The April 6 Movement was created to commemorate an industrial strike, after all, at a textile factory. There have been more than 3,000 separate labour protests in Egypt since 2004 according to a report by the AFL-CIO. The Kefaya movement is considered by some experts to be a central organizer of the January 25 protests, along with Mohamed ElBaradei’s organization (two-minute video with Samer Shehata).


The technological narrative has also been used to describe the rebellion as “leaderless” and “self-organizing” (see a claim for this by Wikinomics’ Don Tapscott here, and an illuminating analysis of the question by sociologist Zeynep Tufekci here). Tapscott takes a strong form of the argument: “Just as people can self-organize to contribute to Wikipedia, the computer operating system Linux, or the world’s biggest library of video content, they can participate in social change and coalesce into revolutionary movements as never before.”
(Aside: Does anyone else find the language of “self-organization” insulting to the protesters? It slides too easily into this kind of thing: “much in the same way that slime mould coalesces in a forest and moves towards an emergent common ‘goal,’ so too do simple-message-connected crowds of people coalesce to move towards a common, emergent goal without the overt direction of an explicit leader.” So brave protesters are like slime mould? Really?)
But of course coordination and leadership is not necessarily going to be obvious to Western eyes. As David Kirkpatrick writes in the New York Times: “They are the young professionals, mostly doctors and lawyers, who touched off and then guided the revolt shaking Egypt, members of the Facebook generation who have remained mostly faceless — very deliberately so, given the threat of arrest or abduction by the secret police.”
Some organizing was kept off Facebook on purpose, and so received little attention – like these flyers that Jodi Dean points to. As she says, even Lenin – not exactly known as a networky kind of bloke – agreed that “mass movement and ‘professional revolutionaries’ are not alternative organizational forms. Each is necessary”.
Another counterpoint to this “leaderless protest” story is a fascinating Wall-Street Journal article by Charles Levinson and Margaret Croker, who tell a story (The Secret Rally that Sparked an Uprising) about clandestine meetings of small groups of organizers outwitting the efforts of the police to follow what’s going on. Of course, getting such a story requires a lot of interviewing and building of confidence.
But there is a kernel…
So yes, I do think the Facebook Revolution narrative is overstated, and that the Egyptian rebellion marks much less of a break from previous revolts than the language of “Revolution 2.0” suggests. I agree with this article in TechCrunch (of all places) that “People, not Things, are the Tools of Revolution”. But there is a kernel of truth there, I do admit. Ghosim’s quotation at the top of the page is a clear indicator that some young Egyptians feel a sense of identity with Facebook and the Internet: that it is their generation’s culture, not their parents and not the authorities. But that’s for another time.

Freedom’s Unsteady March: America’s Role in Building Arab Democracy (by Tamara Cofman Wittes)

On May 1st 2008, FOREIGN POLICY & SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY organized an event at the Brookings Institution to discuss the new book, then, of TAMARA COFMAN WITTES. Brookings Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes argues in her new book Freedom’s Unsteady March: America’s Role in Building Arab Democracy (Brookings Institution Press, 2008) that democracy promotion in the Arab world remains an essential component of any strategy to achieve long-term American goals in that critical region. In November 2009, Tamara Cofman Wittes became deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs at the U.S. Department of State. She was at Brookings from 2003 to 2009.
undefined        undefined          
TAMARA WITTES:   When I began writing Freedom’s Unsteady March four years ago, as Martin said, I set it up as a two-part argument. First, why the United States should promote democracy in the Arab world, and then how. Now, at the time, I thought the why part of the argument would be pretty uncontroversial, but the how might be very useful. After all,……READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT 

Selected Reviews

“[Freedom’s Unsteady March] is an intelligent and thorough analysis that may help guide the next administration through the extreme challenge of furthering US interests in the Middle East. ” Dierdre Sinnott, Foreword Magazine

“Freedom’s Unsteady March is billed as a “realist’s guidebook for democracy promotion.” Wittes does not shrink from acknowledging the failures of the Bush administration in this area. But she attributes these failures to a halfhearted effort rather than the inherent unachievability or inadvisability of the objective.” Eva Bellin, Foreign Affairs

“We ultimately need allies who share our values—not just our interests. In FREEDOM’S UNSTEADY MARCH, Tamara Cofman Wittes forcefully and articulately reevaluates how we can encourage liberalization in the Middle East. It is a welcome contribution to the ongoing foreign policy debate.” Lee Hamilton, president, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

“FREEDOM’S UNSTEADY MARCH is a definitive assessment of one of the central foreign policy challenges of our era. Not trapped in the Beltway straightjacket of either cheering for or sneering at President Bush, Wittes provides compelling arguments for why the United States should foster democratic change in the Middle East, and then offers creative yet sober ideas for how to promote democracy more successfully. Wittes knows intimately both Washington and the Arab world, knowledge which grounds her arguments in solid research and prudent judgments. It should be required reading for anyone seeking to help make U.S. foreign policy in the next administration.” Michael McFaul, professor of political science, Stanford University

“The author contends that democratic reform in the Arab world is neither a luxury nor a pipe dream, but a necessity. In this compact, lucid book about the recent democracy project in the Arab Middle East, Tamara Cofman Wittes provides an incisive, critical account of the Bush administration’s democracy promotion policy. Despite its commendable objective, it was underfunded, bureaucratically contested, and ideologically entangled. Wittes concludes with a passionate plea to hold firmly to that policy objective but to serve it better.” Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian democracy activist and chairman of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies

The Empire of the city: the three city states (Vatican City, the City of London & Washington D.C)
Google’s Revolution Factory

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars store

Tony Cartalucci
February 12, 2011

Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0

In 2008, the Alliance of Youth Movements held its inaugural summit in New York City. Attending this summit was a combination of State Department staff, Council on Foreign Relations members, former National Security staff, Department of Homeland Security advisers, and a myriad of representatives from American corporations and mass media organizations including AT&T, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and MTV.


One might suspect such a meeting of representatives involved in US economic, domestic and foreign policy, along with the shapers of public opinion in the mass media would be convening to talk about America’s future and how to facilitate it. Joining these policy makers, was an army of “grassroots” activists that would “help” this facilitation.

Among them was a then little known group called “April 6″ from Egypt. These Facebook “savvy” Egyptians would later meet US International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei at the Cairo airport in Februrary 2010 and spend the next year campaigning and protesting on his behalf in his bid to overthrow the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The Alliance of Youth Movements mission statement claims it is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping grassroots activists to build their capacity and make a greater impact on the world. While this sounds fairly innocuous at first, even perhaps positive, upon examining those involved in “,” a dark agenda is revealed of such nefarious intent it is almost difficult to believe.

Screenshot from’s supporters page. is officially partnered with the US Department of State and Columbia Law School. Its corporate sponsors include Google, Pepsi, and the Omnicon Group, all listed as members of the globocrat Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CBS News is a sponsor and listed on the globocrat Chatham House’s corporate membership list. Other sponsors include Facebook, YouTube, Meetup, Howcast, National Geographic, MSNBC, GenNext, and the Edelman public relations firm.

undefined’s “team” includes Co-Founder Jared Cohen, a CFR member, Director of Google Ideas, and a former State Department planning staff member under both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton.

Founding with Cohen is Jason Liebman of Howcast Media which works with mega-corporate conglomerates like Proctor & Gamble, Kodak, Staples, Ford, and government agencies such as the US State Department and the US Defense Department, to create “custom branded entertainment, innovative social media, and tardeted rich-media campaigns.” He was also with Google for 4 years where he worked to partner with Time Warner (CFR), News Corporation (FoxNews, CFR) Viacom, Warner Music, Sony Pictures, Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post Company.

Roman Sunder is also credited with co-founding He founded Access 360 Media, a mass advertising company, and he also organized the PTTOW! Summit which brought together 35 top executives from companies like AT&T (CFR), Quicksilver, Activison, Facebook, HP, YouTube, Pepsi (CFR), and the US Government to discuss the future of the “youth industry.” He is also a board member of Gen Next, another non-profit organization focused on “affecting change for the next generation.”

It is hard, considering these men’s affiliations, to believe that the change they want to see is anything less than a generation that drinks more Pepsi, buys more consumerist junk, and believes the United States government every time they purvey their lies to us via their corporate owned media.

While the activists attending the summit adhere to the philosophies of “left-leaning” liberalism, the very men behind the summit, funding it, and prodding the agenda of these activists are American’s mega-corporate combine. These are the very big-businesses that have violated human rights worldwide, destroyed the environment, sell shoddy, overseas manufactured goods produced by workers living in slave conditions, and pursue an agenda of greed and perpetual expansion at any cost. The hypocrisy is astounding unless of course you understand that their nefarious, self-serving agenda could only be accomplished under the guise of genuine concern for humanity, buried under mountains of feel-good rhetoric, and helped along by an army of exploited, naive youth.

What we see is not a foundation from which all activists can work from, but a foundation that has a very selective group of activists working on “problem spots” the US State Department would like to see “changed.” Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, and even Thailand – where ever protesters and movements are working to undermine governments non-conducive to corporate America’s agenda, you will find supporting their efforts.
The April 6 Movement of Egypt is one of them, and their role in the apparent success of the US ousting of Hosni Mubarak that may see their man Mohamed ElBaradei in office is a perfect example of how this new army of prodded youth will be deployed. It is color revolution 2.0, run directly out of the US State Department with the support of corporate America.

It would be strongly recommended that readers go to themselves and explore the website, in particular the 3 summits they have held and those that were in attendance. Everyone from the RAND Corporation to the Council on Foreign Relations comes to “prod.” truly is a new tentacle for manipulating and undermining the sovereignty of foreign nations.
2008 Summit New York City .pdf
2009 Summit Mexico City .pdf
2010 Summit London

Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left by Dr. K R Bolton- February 28, 2011

 An enlightening article by Tony Cartalucci,[1] entitled “Google’s Revolution Factory – Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0,” has been published by Global Research.[2] Here Cartalucci focuses on the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM), a.k.a.
Cartalucci states that was started in 2008 to co-ordinate “radical” youth movements of what he calls a “left-liberal” nature. Among the founding groups was the April 6 Youth Movement, which has been the vanguard of the revolt in Egypt. What the naïve, the ill-informed, and those who have the disadvantage of a University miseducation will find perplexing is that these young revolutionaries have been sponsored by corporations such as Pepsi, by sundry globalist think tanks and NGOs, and by the U.S. State Department. Cartalucci comments on this:
It is hard, considering these men’s affiliations, to believe that the change they want to see is anything less than a generation that drinks more Pepsi, buys more consumerist junk, and believes the United States government every time they purvey their lies to us via their corporate owned media.
While the activists attending the summit adhere to the philosophies of “left-leaning” liberalism, the very men behind the summit, funding it, and prodding the agenda of these activists are America’s mega-corporate combine. These are the very big-businesses that have violated human rights worldwide, destroyed the environment, sell shoddy, overseas manufactured goods produced by workers living in slave conditions, and pursue an agenda of greed and perpetual expansion at any cost. The hypocrisy is astounding unless of course you understand that their nefarious, self-serving agenda could only be accomplished under the guise of genuine concern for humanity, buried under mountains of feel-good rhetoric, and helped along by an army of exploited, naive youth.[3]
Been There, Done That: The Old New Left
A pseudo-revolutionary youth movement controlled by Establishment wire-pullers is not a new phenomenon. The CIA, Tax Exempt Foundations, and Corporate America experimented with AYM’s precursors during the 1960s as a means of dialectical “controlled opposition.” One of these dialectical aims was to push a paradigm shift of the USA in a moderately (?) Leftist direction by sponsoring the extreme New Left nihilists. A concomitant part of this was to also sponsor the “Women’s Lib” of Gloria Steinem, et al, which has assisted the corporate elite in detaching women from the family and incorporating them into the workforce as part of the capitalist production process behind the facade of “equality.”
The ideological foundations for the 1960s “youth rebellion” were laid by dissidents of the Old Left mostly from the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, whose academia fell out with Stalin, escaped from Hitler and ended up in the USA at Columbia University and at the New School for Social Research. This coterie from Europe came in under the direct sponsorship of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Emergency Program for European Scholars, which had last say in who was to be selected.[4]
Under the direction of Theodor Ardorno, this coterie produced the seminal study The Authoritarian Personality,[5] the purpose being to show by the use of personality questionnaires that those who believed in traditional values and especially the family and parental authority were mentally ill, whereas those with a Leftist outlook (presumably like Jim Jones, for example) were mentally healthy. [6] Hence, the ideological basis was laid for a revolt against familial bonds, including traditional gender roles.
From out of this ideological fermentation the individual most responsible for laying the intellectual foundations of the New Left was Herbert Marcuse, who got his start in the USA as one of the refugees sponsored by the Rockefeller program. During World War II, he worked for the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, and then for the US State Department until 1950.[7] During the 1960s Marcuse became the “guru of the New Left”, he was “often discussed” by the mass media, and his students began to gain influential academic positions and to promote his ideas, making him a major force in US intellectual life.[8] Marcuse’s Eros & Civilization became the manifesto of the 1960s counter-culture. He received Rockefeller funding for his bookOne Dimensional Man.[9]
Timothy Leary, like Gloria Steinem, was “handled” by CIA operative Cord Meyer. [10] Leary later credited Meyer with, “helping me understand my political cultural role more clearly.” In 1953, the CIA established a front, The Society for Human Ecology, and spent $25 million on a research programme at Harvard, Stanford and Berkley universities, to experiment with mind-altering drugs, particularly mescaline and LSD. In 1960 Frank Barrow of the CIA established at Harvard the Psychedelic Drug Research Center. At the time, Leary was a lecturer in psychology at Harvard. It is here, under Barrow’s direction, that Leary began his experiments with LSD. Leary later stated, “Some powerful people in Washington have sponsored all this drug research.”[11]
By 1967 Leary had become the icon of the counter-culture, his slogan being: “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out”. The involvement of the Establishment in promoting the drug counter-culture was frankly stated by Leary in an interview with High Times, a leading counter-cultural magazine of which he was an editor, in 1978:
If you look back, many things that we thought were coincidences turned out not to have been accidents. The entire LSD movement itself was sponsored originally by the CIA to whom I give great credit. I would not be here today if it were not for the foresight and prestige of the CIA psychologists. So give the CIA credit for being a truly intelligence agency.[12]
In 1937 the “Radio Project” was established at Princeton University with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. The head of the Project was Paul Lazarsfeld, an Austrian socialist[13] who had been brought to the USA as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow,[14] and became one of the most influential social scientists in America as the founder of “public opinion research.” At Princeton Lazarsfeld established the Office of Radio Research. Lazarsfeld’s students were to become the heads of the CBS, NBC and ABC corporations. A biography of Lazarsfeld states:
In 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation radio research grant was transferred from Princeton to Columbia University, where Lazarsfeld became a professor of sociology. In 1944 the Office of Radio Research was renamed the Bureau of Applied Social Research,[15] which became in the 1950s and 1960s the leading university-based social research institute in the United States.[16]
Theodor Adorno was one of the major research scientists employed by the Radio Project as director of the project’s Music Division. His research was nicknamed “The Little Annie Project”. This examined the emotional reactions of listeners to characters and scenes, so that a scriptwriter could influence the response in an audience. Adorno described addiction to music as similar to other forms of addiction and as a means for the socialization of individuals into a mass.
This is the background of what New Left luminary Jerry Rubin described as the formula of the “youth revolt”: sex, drugs and music, Rubin stating of this in his revolutionary manifesto Do It! (obliging published by Simon and Schuster): “We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason, and that’s a combination hard to beat.”[17]
Organization and Funding
The same type of corporate and Government-connected sponsorship that has been creating the present reanimated “New Left” to act as the vanguard of the world “velvet revolution” pulled the same stunt on youngsters during the 1960s. The specific institution from which the New Left emerged was the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) initially funded by James Warburg,[18] a scion of the Warburg international banking dynasty, and “by the Warburg family” (sic).[19]
According to Sidney Blumenthal, who conducted interviews with IPS for The Washington Post in 1986, “IPS became a bridge between liberalism and the New Left during the 1960s and 1970s.”[20]IPS co-founder Marcus Raskin for example was associated with the Radical Education Project of the primary New Left movement, Students for a Democratic Society. The IPS continues to receive funding from the major Foundations, including Ford and Rockefeller.[21]
The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was born from the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID). This was the youth wing of the Rockefeller-funded, League for Industrial Democracy, (LID)[22] the U.S. branch of Fabian-socialism. According to Political Research Associates, a prominent Left-wing think tank, SLID was the U.S. affiliate of an international socialist youth movement which received CIA money: LID’s Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) was an associate member of the CIA-financed International Union of Socialist Youth.[23] SLID received money to maintain its international contacts from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, a major CIA conduit for funds.[24] Another recipient of CIA funding since 1950 was the US National Student Association.[25]Philip Agee states that the NSA provided an important basis for the New Left, and was closely associated with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the SDS:
…[M]embers of Students for a Democratic Society provided important leadership for campus-based activities.[26] According to Angus Johnston, who had been secretary of the US Students Association, “…NSA played a vital role in the wave of student activism that rose in the early 1960s, doing much to advance a student-centered vision for the American university. Many of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) became involved in national activism through NSA…”[27]
One of those involved with founding the SDS, James Kunen, writes in his memoir The Strawberry Statement that Big Business sought to channel funds to the SDS as part of a dialectical process:
In the evening I went up to the University to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS convention. He said that at the convention men from Business International Roundtables, the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government —tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.
They agree with us on black control and student control…
They want McCarthy in.[28] They see fascism as the threat, see it coming from Wallace.[29] The only way McCarthy could win is if the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene look more reasonable. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago.
We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the centre as they move to the left.[30]
This Big Business dialectic with the New Left is confirmed independently by Gerald Kirk, who as a student at the University of Chicago, and became active in the SDS, the DuBois Club,[31] the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party, as an informant for the FBI. Kirk broke from the Left in 1969. The following year, he testified before the House and Senate Internal Security panels:
Young people have no conception of the conspiracy’s strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below…. They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they’re fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realise that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes…[32]
The manner by which the dialectical process works was specifically demonstrated in 1968 when the SDS Columbia chapter instigated a student revolt and take-over of the University. Revolutionary leadership was taken out of the hands of the SDS and was taken over by the Students for a Restructured University (SRU) [33] that had been funded with a $40,000 grant from the Ford Foundation.[354 The Ford Foundation 1968 annual report states that:
At the University of California (Berkeley), a grant of $500,000 was given for a new university Office of Educational Development that enlists both students and faculty in the planning and conduct of educational experiments. These include new interdisciplinary courses that reflect contemporary social, political, and economic issues, and a system of residential colleges linked to specific student interests rather than to academic fields.[35]
The Ford Foundation was funding in Berkeley, noted as the centre of New Left radicalism, the institutional promotion of New Left ideology. Note the reference to “educational experiments,” “courses that reflect contemporary social, political and economic issues,” and the promotion of a system of so-called “specific student interests.” The 1968 Foundation report states further:
To facilitate thoughtful student involvement in academic affairs, the Foundation granted $315,000 to the National Student Association for a three-year program. The grant will assist two principal activities: a national dissemination program to inform students of various patterns of educational innovation and change and participation of N.S.A. staff as advisors in student reform efforts.
At Columbia University, which was severely disrupted by student demonstrations in the spring, grants were made to three groups studying and redefining the roles of faculty, students, administrators, and trustees. They included a faculty committee and a student organization that was active in the demonstrations but is dedicated to restructuring, not overturning, the university.
The Foundation report cryptically mentions “a student organization” active in the New Left demonstrations with the SDS, Black Panthers and others, referring here to the Students for a Restructured University, without naming the SRU as the recipient. Students for a Restructured University presented themselves as the “moderate” wing of the student uprising, the strategy being to threaten that if their “moderate” demands were not met, the University administration would have to deal with the SDS and other extremists. This was the dialectical strategy in operation.
Here We Go Again
The current use of the young generation for capitalist revolution behind the banner inscribed with left-liberal slogans is therefore a well-tried formula. A difference is that where it was once the CIA which co-opted “radicals” such as Gloria Steinem and Timothy Leary under a program directed by Cord Meyer, a co-director of the United World Federalists along with banking scion James Warburg,[36] the CIA programs have been replaced with those of the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Soros, and an array of often interlocking fronts, think tanks and NGOs.[37]
Cartalucci has exposed the background of a contemporary major youth movement that is analogous to the New Left of yesteryear, as well as cogently explaining the real purposes of this movement. The by-line of AYM/ is: “Identify. Connect. Support.”[38] states:
We match members of our global network with necessary resources from the technology, media, private and public sectors as well as with each other in order to foster peer to peer capacity building. hosts annual summits, regional training events, and on online hub for best practices, lessons learned, discussion and news about the use of new technologiesin social movements.[39]
The focus is on the use of digital technology, a feature of the “velvet revolutions” [40]from Eastern Europe, to Central Asia to the current turmoil in North Africa and Iran. calls their constituency “digital activists.”[41]
Whereas the CIA covertly channelled funds to the New Left during the 1960s, now the new generation of young revolutionaries proudly display the logos of their corporate sponsors. Under the category of “Sponsors” states: has leveraged its relationships with exciting movements in civil society to bring together some of the globe’s top technology and communications companies to share their knowledge and expertise with online activists from across the world. has received sponsorship and continues to be supported by global industry leaders…[42]
These corporate sponsors displayed on the AYM website are: Howcast, Edelman, [43] Google,[44] Music TV, Meetup, Pepsi,[45] CBS News, Mobile Accord, Youtube, Facebook, MSN/NBC, National Geographic, Omnicom Group,[46] Access 360 Media, and Gen Next.
The Public Partnerships are: Columbia Law School, and the US State Department.
Most of the logos on the AYM website link directly to the companies so that also serves as an advertisingmedium for corporate America. What is of interest is that the digital technology companies approve and support the manner by which their services are being used in the world velvet revolution. They are not only not indifferent; they are the sponsors of the revolutionaries. This is because the “brave new world” being created by their young “digital activists” will be one in which young consumers will emerge from the traditional societies that are now being overthrown. There will be a larger consumer market; more youngsters addicted to consumerism, as they are in the West.
Howcast, the primary backer of AYM, has for example made a business empire out of “how to” videos based around the banality of the mass consumer, the subjects of wisdom being imparted including: “How to go on a date with someone you met on the internet,” “How to prevent a blister,” “How to headbang,” “How to enter and elegantly exit a car…”[47] …Not exactly in the same category as The Communist Manifesto or The Little Red Book, but fitting articulations of the type of revolution that neocon strategist Maj. Ralph Peters predicted would overtake the old order and reshape the world in America’s image by means of consumer addiction via what he called “creative destruction.”[48]
Howcast CEO Jason Liebman conceived the idea of the Alliance of Youth Movements/ His profile on the Howcast website states of Liebman: “Jason is also a cofounder of the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM), a nonprofit organization that helps young people to effect nonviolent change around the world using 21st-century tools.”[49] Howcast is described as working directly “with brands, agencies, and organizations” such as GE, Proctor & Gamble, Kodak, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Defense, and Ford Motor Company… [50] Howcast is therefore intimately involved not only with global corporations but also with the U.S. Government. Liebman was previously with Google where he forged corporate relationships with Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, Warner Music, Sony Pictures, Reuters, The New York Times, and the Washington Post Company.[51]
The other Board Members and Co-Founders are:
Jared Cohen is director of Google Ideas. “He is also an Adjunct Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he focuses on terrorism and counter-radicalization, the impact of connection technologies, and ’21st century statecraft.’”[52] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the omni-present foreign policy think tank that was founded in the aftermath of World War I by corporate interests in conjunction with academics and politicians, and is the prototype of subsequent think tanks.[53] Cohen is a director and founder of a youth movement that claims to be creating revolutionary change throughout the world, yet simultaneously he advises CFR on “counter-radicalization.” With this it might be discerned the actual purpose of that of co-opting and channeling youth dissent into acceptable forms. The profile for Cohen continues:
Previously, he served for four years as a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff under both Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. In this capacity, he advised on the Middle East, South Asia, counter-terrorism, counter-radicalization, and the development of the “21st century statecraft” agenda. He is twice a recipient of the Secretary of State’s Meritorious Honor Award.
Cohen is author of the books Children of Jihad: A Young American’s Travels Among the Youth of the Middle East and One Hundred Days of Silence: America and the Rwanda Genocide. He has also written several articles, including “Diverting the Radicalization Track” (Policy Review) and “Iran’s Young Opposition” (SAIS Review).
Cohen has travelled extensively throughout Africa, where he examined issues related to democracy, governance, and genocide. He has also conducted research in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, looking at opposition groups, the spread of technology, and interviewing militants ranging from Hezbollah to several Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.[54]
The other corporate revolutionary Board Member and Co-Founder of is Roman Tsunder, founder of Access 360 Media, “the nation’s largest digital Out-of-Home media network focused on shoppers that connects to over 100MM consumers each month in over 10,000 locations through the communication platforms that matter most to them – In-store, Online and Mobile.”
In 2009, Roman created the PTTOW! Summit (, an invite only event bringing together 35 top execs from the world’s most innovative companies to discuss the future of the youth industry, representing every major industry category, including: wireless (AT&T), clothing (Quiksilver); gaming (Activision), social media (Facebook), technology (HP), online video (YouTube), beverage (Pepsi), athletes (Kelly Slater) and the US Government.[55]
Tsunder’s agenda is clear enough, as with others, being to create and expand the “youth industry” (sic) and that indicates how youth are perceived by the corporate revolutionaries: as consumers and potential consumers. He is also “a founder and board member of Gen Next (, a non-profit organization focused on ‘affecting change for the next generation.’”[56] Revolution has become another means of profit maximization. Gen Next is one of the corporate sponsors of
The Movement’s “Development and Corporate Partnerships Manager,” itself an interesting title for a supposedly idealistic youth organization, is Rachel Silver, who worked for Liebman’s Howcast, and as such organized the Movement’s summits in New York City, Mexico City and London.[57]
AYM Summits
The Movement has held three summits so far. The 2010 Summit held in London, had as its keynote speaker Scott Heifferman from Other luminaries at the summit were Kristen Morissey from Google; Juan Zarate, CBS News; Farah Pandith: Special Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State on Muslim Affairs.
“Guests, hosts and sponsors” included representatives from Google, Rand Corp., Edelman, Howcast, Access 360 Media, World Bank, US Institute of Peace,[58] Global Engagement Group, and Center for Strategic and International Studies.[59][60]
“Moderators and Speakers were from the National Democratic Institute,[61] Gen Next, Twitter, CBS, Meet Up, Google, World Bank, and You Tube. Farah Pandith and Jared Cohen represented the US State Department.’s Role in the North Africa Tumult
Lest it be thought that is not much more than a bunch of nerdish armchair revolutionaries and a past-time for CEO yuppies, the organization has been playing an important role in the North Africa upheavals. Ariel Schwartz writing for the Fast Company, writes:
File this under: Timing is still everything. Just in time to help organize Egyptian grassroots activists with restored Internet access, the Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) has rebranded itself as, an online hub for digital activists….
The AYM has a history of creating change–in 2008, a summit organized by the AYM included leaders of Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement, a protest movement seeking political reform and a democratic government.
“ is the source for anyone who wants to keep up to date on the use of technology for achieving real social change,” said and Howcast cofounder Jason Liebman in a statement. “We have existed for three years as a support network for grassroots activists using digital tools, and today we come out of alpha launch to make our platform and resources available to everyone.”
In other words, the revolution is now centralized…[62]
It should be recalled that the April 6 Youth Movement has been a major factor in organizing the Egyptian revolt. The link for the April 6 Youth Movement provided by Fast Company goes to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the veteran globalist institutions, which describes the pivotal role “social media” played in the creation of the April 6 Youth Movement
In the spring of 2008, over 100,000 users of the social networking website Facebook joined an online group to express solidarity with workers protesting in the Delta industrial city of al-Mahalla al-Kubra. As the protests escalated into a nationwide strike, the Facebook group gained momentum and eventually coalesced into a political movement known as the April 6 Youth Movement.
In 2009, the group still claimed a membership of around 70,000 young Egyptians, most of whom are well-educated and politically unaffiliated. Like Egypt’s other protest movements, the April 6 Youth Movement is not a formal political party, but it nonetheless provides an outlet for a new generation of politically conscious Egyptians.[63]
Google’s Ghonim
One of the first leaders of the riots in Egypt to be detained was Google’s Egyptian executive Wael Ghonim, arrested on January 8, and freed ten days later. “Wael was also active on Facebook and Twitter regarding the Revolution…”[64] Newsweek credits Ghonim with a major role in the Egyptian revolt, with the subheading: “Wael Ghonim’s day job was at Google. But at night he was organizing a revolution.” [65] Although based in Dubai as Google’s head of marketing for North Africa, Ghonim “volunteered to run the Facebook fan page of Mohamed ElBaradei,[66] the Egyptian Nobel Prize winner who had emerged as a key opposition leader.”[67] According to Newsweek, it was Ghonim’s broadcast that actually instigated the revolt that toppled Mubarak:
On Jan. 14, protests in Tunisia felled that country’s longstanding dictator, and Ghonim was inspired to announce, on Facebook, a revolution of Egypt’s own. Each of the page’s 350,000-plus fans was cordially invited to a protest on Jan. 25. They could click “yes,” “no,” or “maybe” to signal whether they’d like to attend.[68]
Interestingly, it is claimed that Ghonim undiplomatically rejected offers by an “American NGO” to fund him. The claim seems disingenuous, given that Google is a U.S. corporation with close contact with the U.S. State Department, sundry NGOs and think tanks and a pivotal part of AYM. The question arises as to whether this is posturing by Ghonim given his comment that he would like to resume his job with Google if he’s not “fired” for his role in “sparking the Egyptian revolution.”[69] The quip is pure cant, as it seems unlikely that Ghonim is ignorant of the role Google and Facebook have played with AYM and the “velvet revolutions.” The following nonsense is supposed to have taken place between Ghonim and Google head office:
On the record, Google’s not talking about Ghonim or the question of employee activism. For his part, Ghonim told CBS’s Katie Couric in an interview on Friday that his participation in the protests had no connection with his employer.
“They did not know anything about this and actually when I took the time off and I went to Cairo, they did not know I was going to the protest,” he said. “But when everything became public, I talked with the company and they suggested that I take a leave of absence and I also suggested that to them and I think it was a good decision for that. Google has nothing to do with this.”[70]
Columnist Charles Cooper is also writing drivel when he questions whether Ghonim is “one off for Silicon Valley” (sic). Ghonim is “one of” tens of thousands of yuppies around the world being agitated, trained and directed towards revolutionary purposes by an array of think tanks, NGOs and US Government agencies. Cooper continues:
Maybe that was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment. But there’s a larger truth behind his quip. The key role played by one of Google’s key executives in the Middle East revived a decades-old dilemma that many other technology companies face when it comes to the question of political activism: Where should they draw the line?
“It’s one of those things that companies don’t want to touch with a ten foot pole,” a tech public relations exec told me on background.
The obvious truth du jour is that tech companies don’t want to take political positions – even when regimes use their products to oppress their own people.[71]
Cooper is writing unadulterated CRAP. It might be asked whether Cooper is a liar or a half-wit? If he has never heard of AYM, he must surely know about the role long played by the digi-twits in the velvet revolutions in Serbia and elsewhere? identifies Ghonim on its timeline for the Egyptian revolt as being the Google executive who instigated the revolt and who was in contact with the April 6 Youth Movement:
…Spring 2010 A group of activists, including Google executive Wael Ghonim and April 6 leader Ahmed Maher, begin meeting once a week to discuss plans for a protest against the government.
… February 8 – Massive protests continue, with many people—inspired by Wael Ghonim —taking to the streets for the first time. Wael speaks to the crowds at Tahrir Square.[72]
Feburary 11 – Wael tells CNN: If you want to liberate a government, give them the internet.
TechCrunch writes of Ghonim and the role that is played by the “digital activists”:
Ghonim, who has been a figurehead for the movement against the Egyptian government, told [CNN’s Wolf] Blitzer “If you want to liberate a government, give them the internet.”
Ghonim, is of course, referring to the fact much of this revolution was organized on Twitter and Facebook (similar to the Tunisian protests). Ghonim was believed to have hosted the first Facebook page that organized the January 25th protests. When Blitzer asked “Tunisia, then Egypt, what’s next?,” Ghonim replied succinctly “Ask Facebook.”
He went on to personally thank Mark Zuckerberg, and said he’d love to meet Facebook’s CEO. Ghonim says that he’s looking forward to getting back to his work at Google but he plans to write a book, “Revolution 2.0″ about the role of social media and the internet in political demonstration. There’s no doubt that social media has changed political activism irrevocably, and this moment will surely be a historic moment for Facebook and Twitter.[74]
There is no meaningless rhetoric here about possibly being “fired” by Google, but confidence that Ghonim will return to his job – and I’m sure a promotion – for being what amounts to the epitome of the very “digital activist” who is sponsored by Google, Facebook, Howcast, and the erstwhile social-revolutionaries from AT&T, Pepsi, U.S. State Department, MTV,International Republican Institute, Freedom House, etc.
AYM Inaugural Summit’s inaugural summit in 2008, which the April 6 Youth Movement attended, included a gala hosted by MTV in Times Square.[75] Sponsors of the summit were AT&T,[76] Howcast, Google,[77] Facebook, MTV, and Gen-Next. Eight representatives of the US State Department were present. Some of the speakers were from Columbia Law School, Facebook, Fortune Magazine, Hoover Institution, MTV et al. Panelists included three members of the Obama presidential media campaign; Shaarik Zafar, senior adviser to the US Department for Homeland Security; and Sherif Mansour, Program Officer for Freedom House.[78]
Among the organizations represented were Young Civilians (Turkey), an online activist network of 2,000,000 comprised of sundry “liberals, leftists, feminists, environmentalists, democrats.” Myanmar has a global network working to bring it into the globalist economic fold, the Burma Global Action Network (BGAN) formed by the “‘Support The Monks’ Protest In Burma” group on Facebook, begun 2007. The group at its peak had 450,000 members, which worked together to organize demonstrations around the world.
No Mas Chavez is dedicated to overthrowing a major bugbear of the globalists and the USA, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, whose aim of a Bolivarian bloc in alliance with other nations such as Russia might pose significant opposition to globalism.[79] No Mas Chavez developed from Facebook networking with 80,000 supporters, and has organized demonstrations against Chavez. Another organization at the summit, opposing Chavez was Sumate.
Cuba Development Initiative flagrantly claims to seek the democratization of Cuba as a means of “joining” its “democratic, economic, and social development [with] international financial resources… CDI works with a vast network of individuals and organizations.” Another organization there that is aimed at subjugating Cuba to globalization is Raíces de Esperanza, Inc.: “Our strategy has been to (a) build and unite a student network of campus groups, (b) sponsor academic conferences for Cuban-American youth, (c) mobilize youth abroad in solidarity, and (d) reach out to our counterparts on the Island. We have a committed volunteer core that works on all levels.” (Comment: Whatever happened to the old youth protest slogan: “Hands Off Cuba!”?). CDI was founded by Felice Gorordo, a businessman who has previously worked with the US Departments of State, Commerce and Homeland Security. Another CDI representative at the 2008 summit was Verónica Nur, who “currently works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the Associate Director of Strategic Communications for Policy while also managing the Spanish-language media for the department at large.” Nur “has also served as a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, the International Youth Committee for Democracy in Cuba, and Raíces de Esperanza.
Speakers at the 2008 summit included Prof. Matthew Waxman from Columbia Law School, who has “served in senior positions at the U.S. State Department, Department of Defense and National Security Council.” Larry Diamond, co-editor of the Journal for Democracy, came from the Hoover Institution and is a director of the International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy.[80] “He has also advised the U.S. Agency for International Development (whose 2002 report, Foreign Aid in the National Interest, he coauthored), the World Bank, the United Nations, the State Department, and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations.” Others speakers were from Fortune Magazine, CNN, Facebook, MTV, and PACT (which is said to be the first community youth organization built in the tradition of 1960s New Left revolutionist Saul Alinsky).[81]
Guests included Marc Sageman, founder of Sageman Consulting, who works with think tanks including the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Homeland Security Policy Institute, and is a consultant for the National Security Council, Departments of Homeland Security and of Defense, and “various agencies in the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the U.S. Secret Service.” Ambassador Stuart W Holiday from Meridian House, a “public diplomacy institution [that] works closely with the U.S. Department of State, other government agencies, NGOs, international governments, and the private sector to create global leadership programs.” Holiday is also a Life Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and “works closely with the U.S. Department of State, other government agencies, NGOs, international governments, and the private sector to create global leadership programs.”
2009 Summit
The second AYM was held in Mexico City in 2009 and was opened with a video-relayed talk from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This summit was sponsored by, Facebook, Gen Next, Google, Hi5, Howcast Media, MTV, MySpace, PepsiCo,[82] Univision Interactive Media, Inc., U.S. Department of State, and YouTube.[83]
With the revolutionary zeal of a corporate Trotsky, Richard Lee, vice president of marketing at PepsiCo International, told the summit:
We support The Alliance of Youth Movements and especially the passion, purpose and creativity that young people possess. Today is a moment in time when one individual, with the use of technology can create positive change in the world…and Pepsi will strive to enable this change.[84]
From the U.S. State Department AYM co-founder Jared Cohen[85] stated:
The impact of using online tools and social media to advance positive social change is truly remarkable and exciting. It is critical to encourage and enable today’s youth to apply these technologies as means to catalyze social movements around the world.
Among the “guests, hosts and sponsors” were Juan M. Henao, International Republican Institute; Mick Duffy, PepsiCo International; Sarah Cliffe, The World Bank, et al. There were eight from the US State Department.
Among the participating organizations were reps from the Burma Global Action Network, Corporación Foro de la Juventud Guayaquil, Ecuador; Iranian oppositionist newspaper Etemad Melli; Genç Siviller (Young Civilians, Turkey); JuventudDes (Peru); Tehran Bureau, a “virtual” journalism project; ThinkMoldova, a catalyst for the 2009 so-called “Twitter Revolution” which succeeded in ousting a pro-Russian governing party that wasn’t pleasing to “civil society.”
Raíces de Esperanza, the Cuban oppositionist youth movement, was represented again.
Opponents of Hugo Chavez were represented by Latytud Project who, “So far… have established alliances in Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia.” Another was Movimiento Joven de Venezuela, its representative at the AYM summit being Yon Goicoechea, who is also President of the Caracas Youth, Member of the National Board of Directors of the First Justice Party and Representative of the Movimiento Joven de Venezuela, an NGO dedicated to training and organizing young democratic leaders. Another anti-Chavez organization present was Un Mundo Sin Mordaza.
“Moderators, speakers and panelists” included Jack Dorsey, Chairman, Twitter; James Eberhard, Mobile Accord; KristenMorrissey, Principle New Business Development, Google; Mario González, CNN Español; Matthew Brady, Program Director, Freedom House; Nicole Lapin, CNN; Steve Grove, Head of News and Politics, YouTube; and Tara Lemmey, Founder and CEO, LENS, a corporation involved with technology and security issues, among others…
Among guest luminaries were Juan M. Henao from the International Republican Institute; and Mick Duffy and Richard Lee from PepsiCo International; and Sarah Cliffe, The World Bank, along with the AYM executives and others from Howcast, MobileBehavior, Google, GenNext, and Edelman.
From this it can be seen that particularly well represented were the U.S. State Department; Obama’s media experts; opponents of Hugo Chavez; PepsiCola, Freedom House and the International Republican Institute, the latter two particularly involved with training and funding activists of the “velvet revolution” around the world.[86]
While the “Beat Generation” was too whacked out on LSD to comprehend how they were being manipulated by the CIA and others, what is one to make of the “digital generation”? Are they too stupefied by the puerility of MTV, Twitter, Facebook, and Pepsi to find anything questionable about being involved with the US Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Defense; with AT&T, NED, World Bank, Rand Corp., etc., in the name of “revolution,” “human rights” and “democracy”? It is a generation that has been sold on “ideals” that lead to nothing more than the global shopping mall. Their “ideals” offer the “democratic right” for Muslim, Latin American, Asian, and East European youth to become part of that same consumer society that is a manifestation of a civilization in its cycle of decay.

[1] Mr Cartalucci , Land Destroyer,

[2] Tony Cartalucci, “Google’s Revolution Factory – Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0,” Global Research, February 23, 2011,
[3] Tony Cartalucci, “Google’s Revolution Factory,” ibid.
[4] “(3) Emergency Program for European Scholars, 1940-1945,” Rockefeller Foundation Archives,
[5] T W Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper Row, 1950).
[6] K R Bolton, “‘Sex Pol’: The Influence of the Freudian-Marxian Synthesis on Politics and Society,” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Washington, Vol. 35, No. 3, Fall 2010.
[7] Encyclopaedia of World Biography on Herbert Marcuse,
[8] Douglas Kellner, “Marcuse, Herbert,” The American National Bibliographyhttp://
[9] Herbert Marcuse, “Acknowledgements,” One Dimensional Man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society, See for the acknowledgement:
[10] “Gloria Steinem and the CIA: C.I.A. Subsidized Festival Trips: Hundreds of Students Were Sent to World Gatherings,” The New York Times, 21 February 1967,
[11] Mark Riebling, Tinker, Tailor, Stoner, Spy, Was Timothy Leary a CIA Agent? Was JFK the “Manchurian Candidate”? Was the Sixties Revolution Really a Government Plot?, Osprey, 1994,
[12] Timothy Leary interview, High Times, February 1978.
[13] “Biographical Memoir”‘ (Washington: National Academy Press, 1987), Volume 56, p. 255.
[14] “Biographical Memoir,” Ibid., p. 258.
[15] “Biographical Memoir,” op.cit., p. 260.
[16] Paul Lazarsfeld, ‘Biography’,
[17] Jerry Rubin, Do It! Scenarios of the Revolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), pp. 19, 249.
[18] Institute for Policy Studies, Beginning the Second Decade, 1963-1973.
[19] Institute for Policy Studies, Beginning the Second Decade, ibid.
[20] Sidney Blumenthal, “IPS – Left-Wing Thinkers,” Washington Post, 30 July, 1986.
[21] Green Tracking Library,
[22] ‘Timeline for the Young Social Democrats’, Young Social Democrats,
[23] The International Union of Socialist Youth is the youth affiliate of the Socialist International, comprising social democratic and Labor parties throughout the world. The IUSY was founded in Germany in 1919 under the leadership of the German Bolshevik Karl Liebknacht, and became the Communist Youth International. The IUSY was reconstituted in 1946. ‘International Union of Socialist Youth, Statemaster Encyclopaedia,
[24] Political Research Associates, “League for Industrial Democracy,” Right Web, 10 January 1989, <;
[25] Philip Agee Jr., “CIA Infiltration of Student Groups: The National Student Association Scandal,” Campus Watch, Fall 1991, pp. 12-13,
[26] Ibid.
[27] Angus Johnston, A Brief History of the NSA & USSA, US Student Association,
[28] Left-liberal Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy.
[29] Conservative Southern Democratic presidential candidate George Wallace.
[30] James Kunen The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (New York: Avon, 1970), “At the convention, Men from Business International Roundtables,” pp. 130–131.
[31] A Communist Party front named after Afro-American scholar W E B DuBois.
[32] “Investigation of SDS 1969,” Committee on Internal Security, 91st Congress, 1st Session, Pt. 5, pp. 1654-1705 of hearings.
[33] “Columbia University – Students for a Democratic Society – Unrest,” ABC Evening News, 19 September 1968, Vanderbilt Television News Archive,
[34] An article in a leading British Leftist magazine puts the amount given by the Ford Foundation to SRU at $40,000. Mike Marqusee, “1968 The mysterious chemistry of social change,” Red Pepper, 6 April 2008, <;
$40,000 is also the amount stated by Joel Geier, Associate Editor of the International Socialist Review, “1968: Year of Revolt,”  talk at the University of Illinois, Champaign, Il., March 26, 2008. Geier was a leader of the Free Speech Movement at Berkley during the 1960s. International Socialist review,
[35] ‘Higher Education: Academic Reform’, Ford Foundation Annual Report 1968, <;
[36] Cord Meyer was co-founder, with James P Warburg, of the United World Federalists in 1947, to promote a World State. In 1948 Meyer was World Federalist president. (“Opinion in a drawing room”, Time Magazine, 16 February 1948,,9171,794188,00.html.
[37] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” February 7, 2011 Foreign Policy Journal,
[38] “Mission,”
[39] “Mission,” ibid.
[40] A recent article on the website of Radio Free Europe/Liberty states of this: “The work of groups like Canvas, combined with the proliferation of social-networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, and the coming of age of a wired — and increasingly disaffected — young generation have combined to create a perfect storm threatening authoritarian regimes from Europe to North Africa, to the Middle East.” “Exporting Nonviolent Revolution, From Eastern Europe To The Middle East,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, February 21, 2011,
[41] “Mission,” op. cit.
[42] “Sponsors,”
[43] Edelman is a leading “global” public relations firm,[43] whose clients include fellow sponsor Pepsi.
[44] Corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR “Corporate Membership,”
[45] Corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR “Corporate Membership,”
[46] Corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR “Corporate Membership,”
[47] Howcast,
[48] R Peters. “Constant Conflict,” Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1997,
[49] Howcast, “Meet Our Team,”
[50] “Team Board,”
[51] “Team Board,” ibid.
[52] “Team Board,” ibid.
[53] Council on Foreign Relations,
[54] “Team Board,” op. cit.
[55] “Team Board,” ibid.
[56] “Team Board,” ibid.
[57] “Team Board,” ibid.
[58] US Institute for Peace, “established and funded by Congress.” USIP was created by Pres. Ronald Reagan in 1984.
The Chairman of the Board of Directors is businessman, government appointee and CFR member J. Robinson West.
[59] Center for Strategic and International Studies: “CSIS provides strategic insights and policy solutions to decision makers in government, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society.” CSIS was founded as a Cold War think tank in 1962 to assure America’s world primacy. CSIS, “About Us,”
Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), the veteran Rockefeller protégé, “co-chairs the CSIS Advisory Board.”
Another familiar face is CSIS counsellor and trustee is Henry Kissinger (CFR).
[60] for Youth Movements, “Attendee Biographies, Summit Details,” 2010,
[61] National Democratic Institute has sponsorship from The National Endowment for Democracy; U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Middle East Partnership Initiative; United States Agency for International Development (USAID); 18 Governments in addition to that of the USA; OAS, World Bank Group, United Nations organs; and the types of Foundations that one would expect, including Citigroup Foundation, Ford, Soros’ OSI., etc. NDI, “Who supports Our Work,”
The Chairman of NDI is former US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who also serves on the Board of Directors of the omni-present Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “CFR Membership Roster,”
[62] A Schwartz, “More Tech Tools for Egypt’s Protesters:, an Online Hub for Grassroots Activists,” Fast Company, February 3, 2011,
[63] ” The April 6 Youth Movement,” Carnegie Endowment,
[64] “Google Executive Freed in Egypt,” February 8, 2011,
[65] “The Facebook Freedom Fighter,” Newsweek, February 13, 2011,
[66] It should also be recalled that ElBaradei emerged from the bowels of the International Crisis Group, where he sits with George Soros, to be the man of the hour in Egypt. See: K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011,
[67] “The Facebook Freedom Fighter,” Newsweek, op. cit.
[68] “The Facebook Freedom Fighter,” Newsweek, ibid.
[69] Charles Cooper, “Wael Ghonim: A ‘One-Off’ for Silicon Valley?,” CBS News, Tech Talk, February 11, 2011,;content
[70] Charles Cooper, “Wael Ghonim: A ‘One-Off’ for Silicon Valley?,” CBS News, ibid.
[71] Charles Cooper, ibid.
[72] “Timeline of the January 25 Revolution in Egypt,” AYM, February 14, 2011,
[73] “Timeline of the January 25 Revolution in Egypt,” AYM, ibid.
[74] Leen Rao, TechCrunch, February 11, 2011,
[75], “The Summit: New York City,” 2008,
[76] A corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[77] A corporate sponsor of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[78] “Alliance of Youth Movement Summits,” New York City 2008, “Attendee Biographies,”
[79] K R Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? : New Zealand & Australia’s Geopolitical Alternatives,” India Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2 April-June 2010.
[80] For the role of the National Endowment for Democracy see: K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, op. cit.
[81] Alinsky was the organizational guru of the 1960s New Left.
[82] Corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[83] “Alliance of Youth Movements Summit,” 2009, Howcast,
[84] “Alliance for Youth Movements Second Annual Summit,”
[85] Cohen serves on the U.S. Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff.
[86] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” op. cit.


Where the Arab spring will end is anyone’s guess

Arab unrest has become a permanent feature of the global landscape, unfinished business wherever it is happening.

Egyptian protester with portraits of Mohamed Bouazizi and Khaled Said

The Arab Spring united protesters across the region, but it is still unclear how the situation will play out in many countries. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Tunisia‘s Jasmine revolution will always be remembered as the event that triggered the Arab spring, which has shattered the status quo from Libyato Syria and is widely seen as the biggest transformative event of the 21st century so far. But, six months on, progress has been patchy.

Mohammed Bouazizi, the young Tunisian who started it all by burning himself to death in December 2010, had his desperate imitators in Egypt, where revolution erupted days after Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali’s flight into Saudi exile; and in Jordan, which has seen sporadic unrest but no uprising.

But if the politics of the Arab spring are local, many factors are common across: young people angry and frustrated at the lack of freedoms, opportunities and jobs, unaccountable and corrupt governments, cronyism and, in a few places, grinding poverty.

Rich and poor alike lived in fear of the secret police. But Tunisia, one of the most repressive regimes, fell quickly. The decision by the army to dump the president and not crush the protests was a vital lesson for the Egyptian generals. The alternative is the cruelty of the dictators’ fightbacks in Tripoli and Damascus. Regional differences were ignored in the chain reaction that followed. Yemen’s protests were galvanised by the drama in Cairo’s Tahrir Square but they also involved tribalism, elite rivalry and a small but alarming al-Qaida presence against a background of resource depletion and fear of state failure. Sectarian tensions were the key to the trouble in Bahrain, where a Sunni monarchy rules over a restive Shia majority.

Islamists, the bogeymen of the west and the enemies of all autocratic Arab regimes, have not – yet – played a significant role. Still, Ennahda in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have new opportunities in multi-party systems that will in turn change them. The killing of Osama bin Laden was a timely reminder of the defeat of jihadi ideology in an Arab world being transformed by people power.

Another variable has been the response: French support for Ben Ali was embarrassing; the US was praising Mubarak days before he departed. Muammar Gaddafi had no friends – and the Arab League was crucial in providing a figleaf for UN-sanctioned Nato intervention. Bashar al-Assad, by contrast, has yet to be condemned by the UN for a crackdown that has cost at least 1,300 lives. Bahrain is too strategically important to face more than a rebuke from the US.

Elsewhere in the region, Israel is nervous about the demise of Mubarak. Turkey fears instability in Syria. The Palestinians, eclipsed by drama elsewhere, are trying to learn lessons. Iran’s support for the Arab uprisings is sheer hypocrisy given its crushing of democratic protests since 2009.

Now the EU and the US must stop being seen by Arabs as “partners for dictators” in the words of the Tunisian academic Ahmed Driss. Billions of dollars will be needed to support democracy and development.

Tunisia and Egypt fear instability as they face free elections. But the really hard transformational work, as the respected commentator Rami Khouri has observed, “will start in the years after the new parliaments are elected and the complete infrastructure of political governance is forged according to the will of the majority”.

There are exceptions. The Saudis are investing to create jobs and defuse dissent. Jordan and Morocco have tried liberal gestures. Algeria’s oil wealth and experience of civil war have helped maintain peace there. But it is striking how Arab unrest has become a permanent feature of the global landscape. It is unfinished business wherever it is happening. “The outcome of this tectonic realignment is not just unpredictable but unknowable,” said Prince Hassan of Jordan.


Source : Guardian

US Orders News Blackout Over Crippled Nebraska Nuclear Plant









A shocking report prepared by Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAAE) on information provided to them by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that the Obama regime has ordered a “total and complete” news blackout relating to any information regarding the near catastrophic meltdown of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant [photo top left] located in Nebraska.

According to this report, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant suffered a“catastrophic loss of cooling” to one of its idle spent fuel rod pools on 7 June after this plant was deluged with water caused by the historic flooding of the Missouri River which resulted in a fire causing the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to issue a no-fly ban over the area.

Located about 20 minutes outside downtown Omaha, the largest city in Nebraska, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant is owned by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) who on their website denies their plant is at a “Level 4” emergency by stating: “This terminology is not accurate, and is not how emergencies at nuclear power plants are classified.”

Russian atomic scientists in this FAAE report, however, say that this OPPD statement is an “outright falsehood” as all nuclear plants in the world operate under the guidelines of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) which clearly states the “events” occurring at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant do, indeed, put it in the “Level 4” emergency category of an “accident with local consequences” thus making this one of the worst nuclear accidents in US history.

Though this report confirms independent readings in the United States of“negligible release of nuclear gasses” related to this accident it warns that by the Obama regimes censoring of this event for “political purposes” it risks a “serious blowback” from the American public should they gain knowledge of this being hidden from them.

Interesting to note about this event was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chief, Gregory B. Jaczko, blasting the Obama regime just days before the near meltdown of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant by declaring that “the policy of not enforcing most fire code violations at dozens of nuclear plants is “unacceptable” and has tied the hands of NRC inspectors.”

This report further notes that the “cover-up” of this nuclear disaster by President Obama is being based on his “fantasy” of creating so-called green jobs which he (strangely) includes nuclear power into as his efforts to bankrupt the US coal industry proceed at a record breaking pace.

Unknown to the American people about Obama’s “war” on the US coal industry is it’s estimated to cost them over a 60% increase in their electricity bills by 2014 and cause over 250,000 jobs to be lost in an already beleaguered economy.

More ominous for those American people whose lives depend on the coal industry that is being deliberately destroyed is the Obama regime’s  massive“security exercise” currently ongoing in the major coal mining States of Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, and as we can read about, in part, as reported by InfoWars.Com:

“If you’re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR “security exercise” involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America.

The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a massive “security exercise” throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.

“The participating teams are composed of a variety of TSA assets including federal air marshals, canine teams, inspectors and bomb appraisal officers. They will be joined by state and local law enforcement officials to supplement existing resources, provide detection and response capabilities. The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams,” reports the Marietta Times.

Although the exercise is couched in serious rhetoric about preparedness, it relates to “no specific threat” and the details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment and reminding Americans who their bosses are.”

Obama’s fears of the American people turning against nuclear power, should its true dangers be known, appear to be valid as both Germany and Italy (whose people, unlike the Americans, have been told the truth) have turned against it after the disaster in Japan and vowed to close all of their atomic plants.

Perhaps even more sadly for the American people is this report stating that the Obama regime is “walking in lockstep” with Japan in their attempts to keep the truth of nuclear accidents from their citizens; which in the case of the Japanese can only be labeled as horrific as new evidence points to them knowing within hours of the Great Tsunami that their atomic reactors had melted down, but have only today ordered an evacuation of pregnant women from what are called“radiation hotspots.”

With a country that some scientists are now warning may soon become uninhabitable due to radiation damage, and with reports of mutant rabbits andradioactive whales now being reported, one wonders if in knowing the truth the American people would really want to follow Japan’s “example” instead of those people in Germany and Italy?

But, with an already documented 35% increase in the infant mortality rate for American mothers living in the western coastal regions of the US caused by radiation blowing onto them from Japan being ignored by these people there doesn’t seem to be much hope for them.


Source : Weathertech

Rich, Famous and Powerful Converge at Bilderberg

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, naturally, isn’t attending this year, and his likely successor Christine Lagarde is in China, but the Bilderberg Conference which kicks off in the Swiss resort of St. Moritz on Thursday retains its conspiratorial chic and pulling power.

Fuse | Getty Images

The attendee list of Bilderberg is still pretty much the only thing that is not a closely guarded secret, as 120 of the world’s richest and most powerful people meet behind closed doors, this time at the Suvretta House hotelin Switzerland, a venue which not only boasts a “fairytale castle” design, but also its own “Teddy World.”

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne are known to have attended in the past, although it seems unlikely that either will attend this week.

A spokesperson at the U.K. Treasury press office said it “didn’t know” whether or not Osborne would go this year, but promised to call back. They did not. Given the secretive spirit of Bilderberg, that could well be taken as a confirmation.

The first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 was an attempt to stamp out post-war anti-Americanism in Europe, bringing together senior U.S. and European figures to meet and discuss the international challenges of the day.

Since then, the rich and powerful have continued to meet. The 2010 event, in Sitges, Spain, included on its agenda “The Growing Influence of Cyber Technology,” “Security in a Proliferated World,” “Promises of Medical Science,” and “Can We Feed the World.” according to its official website.

Its secrecy only serves to add fuel to the innumerable conspiracy theoriesthat circulate around the event, with Internet message boards often channelling Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown and putting the “club” in the same bracket as the Freemasons and “Illuminati.”

The 120 participants attend in a private capacity and, officially, they do not forge agreements over global economic policy.

“Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued,” the official Bilderberg website says.

In which case, you might ask, what is the point of Bilderberg?

Andrew Kakabadse is professor of international management development at Cranfield University. For his recent book “Bilderberg People,” co-authored with Nada Kakabadse and Ian Richardson, Kakabadse interviewed a number of past attendees in order to understand how the network of global influence works.

“It’s a meeting. It’s not an organization. It’s not an official summit,” he told “It’s basically a meeting of friends.

“The Bilderbergs are probably the most influential global network of all time. It’s an honor to be invited, it’s a tremendous honor. Part of it is recognition for work done and part of it is for contribution to enabling world affairs.

“The people we talked to are quite genuine. Mostly they don’t understand the conspiracy bit, because they say when you go there what you find is people of all sorts of varying views. But the fact that they’ve been invited is indicative of the position that they’ve reached in life,” he said.

Nevertheless, Bilderberg is where ideas are shared and a transatlantic, capitalist consensus view of the world comes together.

“You do get the impression that what is happening is a shaping of ideas and the shaping of a way forward does take place,” Kakabadse said.

“The name we’d put to this is smart power or shaping, but it is definitely not doing something definite, like ‘we’re going to go and make that investment or conspire against them.’ It’s more about getting a consensus around a position that then infiltrates itself into society.”

The networking opportunities are unique, he added.

“Had you not gone to a Bilderberg meeting, you may not be able to ring X and for them to answer the phone directly. Having gone to a Bilderberg meeting, that happens,” he said. “It may have taken you six months hard consulting to get into somebody’s diary. Having gone to a Bilderberg meeting, it takes two minutes on the phone.”

“There’s many reasons why people want to go to the Bilderberg meetings, there are many advantages at a personal level, but then I suppose there’s the supreme professional advantage of being recognized as a person who has the capability and has achieved a position in life where you can influence thinking on world affairs,” Kakabadse said.

That “supreme advantage,” however, can come at a price. Different people identify themselves differently with the meetings, Kakabadse said, but the greatest anxiety over acceptance, he noted, is amongst those who are invited once, but not asked again.

Source : CNBC