Editorial Guide: DeNeice Kenehan
France has long been a thorn in the side of US globalism because of its stubborn adherence to French interests around the world, rather than those of the manufactured “world community.”
Charles Rivkin
DeNeice Kenehan
[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hy it is good to ignore labels – Curious about Hillary’s War (Libya) I landed at conservative treehouse where I’m learning about the Rivkin Youth Project, a CFR-linked secret campaign toward global corporatization that acculturates disaffected French Muslim youth to challenge nationalist “xenophobia” … in exchange for MTV-McDonald’s Culture ostensibly.
It doesn’t quite always go as planned (vide: ISIS).
-DNK
NOTE TO OUR READERS:
Before going any further, let us clarify one more time and for the record that what you are going to read here was penned by a person widely regarded as being on the “far right”. That said, just as editorial friend DeNeice Kenehan found the material surprisingly cogent, urgent and original, so did we. I guess this shows you that in this confusing world there’s still exceptions that prove the rule, or that the author in question, Kerry Bolton, is actually and objectively a man of the left! See for yourselves. Either way, this is important, thought-provoking stuff. Since we are never afraid of presenting alternate viewpoints to our own when of sufficient quality, and abhor any form of “PC thinking”—especially the liberaloid brand, here it is. —PG
Wading Pool: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/02/01/washington-times-secret-tapes-undermine-hillary-clinton-on-libyan-war/
“The article outlines many of the issues our previous research also uncovered, and presents the contrast between the Pentagon position and the State Department during the crisis in Libya.
However, there is one substantive factual flaw when the Washington Times outlines Hillary’s motive for regime change.
The author writes about the motive from the position of the known visible narrative chosen by Hillary to remove Gaddaffi. Which was to avoid a “humanitarian crisis”, similar to the Rwanda massacre.
The R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine was indeed advanced by Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice; however, that visible motive was a cover for the real impetus which can be found by looking much further back into the Clinton ideology at the Rivkin Project.
The Washington Times article accepts R2P as the motive, it wasn’t.
Indeed, if you think about it in larger context, R2P could never factually form the basis for intervention and regime change because Team Hillary themselves admitted -at the time- they didn’t know the actual players within the opposition forces who would fall under such a protective doctrine.
How could you genuinely call for a protection doctrine without a substantive understanding of the people who you would assign a need of protection for? You cannot.
However, no-one in the Western media ever challenged this false premise. The R2P doctrine was the visible reason given for selling the interventionist path, but it was not the actual motive to explain why Hillary wanted to remove Gaddaffi against the recommendations of the Pentagon and national security apparatus.
The larger Rivkin Project, and the Clinton globalist initiative demand for advancement of multicultural open EU borders was the agenda behind the decision to intervene.”
This is deep stuff folks, and stuff I don’t normally post about. But French Reader is on the trail of understanding, so if you want to dive in….. c’mon along.…
The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations.
Kerry R Bolton, Foreign Policy Journal
[dropcap]D[/dropcap]uring October 19-22, 2010, Charles Rivkin, US Ambassador to France, invited a 29-member delegation from the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) to a conference in France, the stated purpose of which was to discuss Arab and Islamic relations in the country. The meeting was part of a far-reaching subversive agenda to transform that entire character of France and in particular the consciousness of French youth, which includes the use of France’s Muslim youth in a typically manipulative globalist strategy behind the usual façade of “human rights” and “equality.”
Globalist Delegation at US Embassy – The PCIP report states of the conference:
…The delegation further focused on three key themes. First, the group examined Franco-Muslim issues in France through exchanges with Dr. Bassma Kodmani, Director of the Arab Reform Institute, and Ms. Rachida Dati, the first female French cabinet member of North African origin and current Mayor of the 7th Arrondissement in Paris. A trip to the Grand Mosque of Paris and a meeting with the Director of Theology and the Rector there provided additional insight. Second, meetings with Mr. Jean-Noel Poirier, the Vice President of External Affairs at AREVA (a highly innovative French energy company), and with Mr. Brice Lalonde, climate negotiator and former Minister of the Environment, highlighted energy and nuclear policy issues and the differences between U.S. and French policies in these arenas. And finally, the delegation explored the connections between media and culture in California (Hollywood) and France in meetings at the Louvre, the Musee D’Orsay, and at FRANCE 24 – the Paris-based international news and current affairs channel.
The over-riding concern seems to have been on matters of a multicultural dimension, including not only Arab and Islamic relations in France, but perhaps more importantly in the long term, a discussion on the impact of Hollywood “culture” on the French.
The USA has long played a duplicitous game of “fighting terrorism” of an “Islamic” nature as one of the primary elements of its post-Cold War stratagem of manufactured permanent crises, while using “radical Islam” for it own purposes, the well-known examples being: (1) supporting Bin Laden in the war against Russia in Afghanistan; (2) backing Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran; (3) supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army in ousting the Serbs from mineral-rich Kosovo, the KLA having been miraculously transformed from being listed by the US State Department as a “terrorist organization,” to becoming “freedom fighters.”
When US globalists pose as friends of Muslims, the latter should sup with the Great Shaitan with an exceedingly long spoon.
What is the Pacific Council on International Policy? The PCIP, of which Rivkin is a member, was founded in 1995 as a regional appendage of the omnipresent globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), It is headquartered in Los Angeles, but “with members and activities throughout the West Coast of the United States and internationally.” Corporate funding comes from, among others:
- Carnegie Corporation of New York
- Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
- City National Bank
- The Ford Foundation
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
- Rockefeller Brothers Fund
- The Rockefeller Foundation
- United States Institute of Peace
The PCIP is therefore yet another big player in the globalist network comprising hundreds of interconnected organizations, lobbies, “civil society” groups, NGOs, and think tanks, associated the US Government, and with banks and other corporations. As usual, there is a conspicuous presence by Rockefeller interests, and the interesting character, Nicky Rockefeller, is a member, despite the insistence of some “skeptics” that he doesn’t actually exist.
Why France? France has long been a thorn in the side of US globalism because of its stubborn adherence to French interests around the world, rather than those of the manufactured “world community.” Despite Sarkozy, France is one of the few states left in Western Europe with the remnant of a national consciousness. The best way of destroying any such sentiment is to weaken the concepts of nationhood and nationality by means of promoting “multiculturalism.” Was it only a coincidence that the 1968 student revolt, sparked by the most puerile of reasons, occurred at a time both when the CIA was very active in funding student groups around the world, and when President De Gaulle was giving the USA a lot of trouble? De Gaulle did little to play along with American’s post-war plans. He withdrew France from NATO military command. Even during World War II as leader of the Free French, he was distrusted by the USA.
France is one of the few states left in Western Europe with the remnant of a national consciousness…”
As a genuine nationalist and “patriot” in the old sense, Charles de Gaulle could not be bribed or intimidated. And he knew enough about the nascent Anglo-American axis to dislike them vehemently.
[dropcap]O[/dropcap]f particular concern would have been De Gaulle’s advocacy of a united Europe to counteract US hegemony. In 1959 he stated at Strasbourg: “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” The expression implied détente between a future neutralist Europe and the USSR. In 1967 he declared an arms embargo on Israel and cultivated the Arab world. This is the type of statesmanship that globalists fear. With the buffoonery of Sarkozy, and mounting tension with disaffected Muslim youth, a backlash could see an intransigently anti-globalist, “xenophobic” regime come to power. In today’s context, what better way now to subvert French nationalism and head-off any potential to revive as an anti-globalist force, than to use France’s large, unassimilated Islamic component, just as the Bolshevik revolution was undertaken to a significant extent by the disaffected minorities of the Russian Empire?
[dropcap]O[/dropcap]f interest also is the interest of the PCIP delegation in the influence of Hollywood on French culture. This might seem at first glance to be an odd concern. However Hollywood, as the symbol of international cultural excrescence, is an important factor in globalization, in what amounts to a world culture-war. Ultimately the goal of globalism is not to promote the survival of ethnic cultures and identities, but rather to submerge them into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.” Therefore multiculturalism should be viewed as the antithesis of what it is understood as being. So far from the global corporates wanting to promote so-called multiculturalism in terms of assuring the existence of a multiplicity of cultures, as the term implies; it is to the contrary part of a dialectical process whereby under the facade of humane ideals, peoples of vastly different heritage are moved across the world like pawns on a chess board. It is an example of Orwellian “doublethink.”
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is notable that the instigators of the “velvet revolutions” that swept North Africa and reached into Iran are largely “secularized” youths without strong traditional roots. Similarly, the best way to solve France’s ethnic conflicts and to assure that France does not re-emerge again to confront US/globalist interests, is to dialectically create a new cultural synthesis where there is neither a French culture nor an Islamic culture, but under the banner of “human rights” and “equality,” a globalist youth-based culture nurtured by Hollywood, MTV, cyberspace, MacDonald’s and Pepsi. That this is more than hypothesis is indicated in the manner by which the secular youth revolts that took place in North Africa were spawned by an alliance of corporate interests, sponsored by the US State Department and sundry NGOs such as Freedom House. The North African “revolutionaries” are just the type of “Muslim” that the globalists prefer; spawned and nurtured with the cyber-consumer mentality.
“Hollywood, as the symbol of international cultural excrescence, is an important factor in globalization, in what amounts to a world culture-war…”
So what are Rivkin and the US State Department up to in France, that they should be so interested in the place of Hollywood and of Muslims in the country?
The Rivkin Project for Subverting French Youth – That year (2010), when Rivkin had invited a delegation of fellow PCIP members to France, he had outlined a program for the Americanization of France that primarily involved the use of the Muslim minorities and the indoctrination of French youth with corporate globalist ideals. The slogan invoked was the common commitment France and America historically had to “equality.” (The last tenet is grotesque in its hypocrisy, considering that American ruling circles are sworn to smash egalitarianism everywhere and have converted the US itself in one of the most profoundly and pathetic unequal nations on earth.—Eds).
.
Wikileaks released the “confidential” Rivkin program. It is entitled “Minority Engagement Strategy.” Here, Rivkin outlines a program that is a far-reaching interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation and, more profoundly, seeks to change the attitudes of generations of Muslim and French youth so that they might be merged into a new globalist synthesis; or what might be called a new humanity: Homo economicus, or what the financial analyst G Pascal Zachary calls “The Global Me,” to achieve what Rivkin describes as USA’s “national interests.” Rivkin begins by stating that his Embassy has created a “Minority Engagement Strategy,” that is directed at Muslims in France. Rivikin states as part of the program: “…We will also integrate the efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our strategy.”
Rivkin is confident that France’s history of ideological liberalism “will serve us well as we implement the strategy outlined here… in which we press France….” Note the phrase: “press France”. America’s global agenda is linked by Rivkin to his blueprint for transferring France into “a thriving, inclusive French polity [that] will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.” The program will focus on the “elites” of the French and the Muslim communities, but will also involve a massive propaganda campaign directed at the “general population,” with a focus on the young.
The program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history. It means that the Pepsi/MTV generation of Americans and their mentors in academe will be formulating new definitions of French culture and writing new pages of French history to accord with globalist agendas. Towards this end: “…we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools.”
“Tactic Number Three” is entitled: “Launch Aggressive Youth Outreach.” As in other states targeted by the US State Department and their allies at the Soros network, Freedom House, Movement.org, National Endowment for Democracy, Solidarity Center, and so forth; disaffected youth are the focus for change. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to “engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values.” Can the intentions be stated any plainer? It is Americanization culturally and politically. It is here that we can most easily get past the cant and see what is behind the strategy: to form a generation “that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values”. These “U.S. objectives and values” will be sold to the French as “French values” on the basis of the bourgeoisie ideals of 1789 which continue to encumber French ideology on both Left and Right. The young French will be taught to think that they are upholding French traditions, rather than acting as the useful idiots of Americanization, and concomitant banality of the global shopping mall. A far-reaching program incorporating a variety of indoctrination methods is outlined:
To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France, employing new media, corporate partnerships, nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially invited U.S. guests.
The program directed at youth in France is similar to that directed at the youth that formed the vanguard of the “velvet revolutions” from Eastern Europe to North Africa. Potential leaders are going to be taken up by the US State Department in France and cultivated to play a part in the future France of American design:
We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders.
As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain that the exchanges we support are inclusive.
We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.
Here Rivkin is advocating something beyond influencing Muslims in France. He is stating that a significant part of the program will be directed towards cultivating French youth, the potential leaders, in “American” ideals, under the façade of French ideals. The US State Department and their corporate allies and allied NGOs intend to “shape their values.” The globalist program for France is stated clearly enough to be the re-education of French youth. One would think that this is the most important role of the French Government, the Catholic Church and the family; the latter two in particular.
As in the states that are chosen for “velvet revolutions” part of the strategy includes demarcating acceptable political boundaries. As Hillary Clinton stated in regard to the type of state the US Establishment expected to emerge after Qaddafi, the new Libya should be an “inclusive democracy,” open to all opinions, as long as those opinions include a commitment to “equality” and “democracy;” in other words, there must be a new dispensation of freedom in Libya, so long as that freedom does not extend beyond America’s definition of it. And if someone oversteps the lines of “acceptable” democracy, there are American bombs on the standby. In the context of France, however, it is clear that the demarcation of French politics according to globalist dictates cannot include any elements of so-called “xenophobia,” which in today’s context would include a return to the grand politics of the De Gaulle era. Hence, “Tactic 5″ states:
Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing best practices with young leaders in all fields, including young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will create or support training and exchange programs that teach the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local politicians.
Rivkin is outlining a program to train France’s future political and civic leaders. While the programs of US Government-backed NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy are designed to develop entire programs and strategies for political parties in “emerging democracies”, this can be rationalized by stating that there is a lack of experience in liberal-democratic party politics in certain states. The same can hardly be used to justify America’s interference in France’s party politics. Towards this end Rivkin states that the 1000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils: “We will also provide tools for teaching tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university students who teach English in French schools every year.” The wide-ranging program will be co-ordinated by the “Minority Working Group” in “tandem” with the “Youth Outreach Initiative.” One of the issues monitored by the Group will be the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should, to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalization.
Rivkin clarifies the subversive nature of the program when stating: “While we could never claim credit for these positive developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out activities, described above, that prod, urge and stimulate movement in the right direction.” (Italics ours.)
What would the reaction be if the French Government through its Embassy in Washington undertook a program to radically change the USA in accordance with “French national interests,” inculcating through an “aggressive outreach program” focusing on youth, “French ideals” under the guise of “American ideals on human rights?” What would be the response of the US Administration if it was found that the French Government was trying to influence the attitudes of Afro-Americans, American-Indians, and Latinos? What if French officials were ordered to take every opportunity to “press” US officials to ask why there are not more American Indians in Government positions? What would be the official US reaction if it were found that French language educators in American schools and colleges were trying to inculcate American pupils with ideas in the service of French interests, and to reshape attitudes in a pro-French direction in foreign policy? The hypothetical reaction can be deduced from the US response to the “Soviet conspiracy” when Senate and Congressional committees were set up to investigate anyone even vaguely associated with or accused of being aligned to the USSR. So what’s different? The USA perpetrates a subversive strategy in the interests of it globalist corporate elite, instead of in the interests of the USSR or communism. It is not as though the USA has had much of a cultural heritage that it can present itself to any European nation, let alone France, as the paragon of good taste and artistic refinement upon which a national identity can be reconstructed in a dialectical process that requires cultural deconstruction.
The Role of Multiculturalism in the Globalist Agenda – Many nefarious aims have been imposed under the banners of multiculturalism and associated slogans such as “equality” and “human rights.” Like the word “democracy,” used to justify the bombing of sundry states in recent history, these slogans often serve as rhetoric to beguile the well-intentioned while hiding the aims of those motivated by little if anything other than power and greed. One might think of the manner by which the issue of the Uitlanders was agitated to justify the Anglo-Boer wars for the purpose of procuring the mineral wealth of South Africa for the benefit of Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, et al. A similar issue was revived in our own time, under the name of “fighting apartheid,” and while the world was jubilant at the assumption to power of the ANC, the reality has been that while the Africans have not benefited materially an iota, the parastatals or state owned enterprises are being privatized so that they can be sold off to global capitalism. When the patriarch of South African capitalism, Harry Oppenheimer, whose family was a traditional foe of the Afrikaners, died in 2000 Nelson Mandela eulogized him thus: “His contribution to building partnership between big business and the new democratic government in that first period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much.” The “democracy” Oppenheimer and other plutocrats in tandem with the ANC, had delivered to South Africa is the freedom for global capital to exploit the country. Mandela stated the result of this “long march to freedom” in 1996: “Privatization is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.”
It is the same outcome for South Africa that was achieved by the “liberation” of Kosovan minerals in the name of “democracy” and in the name of the rights of Muslims under Serb rule, while other Muslims under their own rule are bombed into submission by the USA and its allies. In commenting on the privatization of the Johannesburg municipal water, which is now under the French corporation Suez Lyonnaise Eaux, the ANC issued a statements declaring that: “Eskom is one of a host of government owned ‘parastatals’ created during the apartheid era which the democratically elected government has set out to privatize in a bid to raise money.” The future of parastatals is more relevant to understating what happened in South Africa than the overthrow of apartheid; and provides a case study in the operations of globalism.
The Character of Global Capitalism – The nature of the globalist dialectic has been explained particularly cogently by Noam Chomsky:
See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist – it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.
France as a Social Laboratory for Globalization: Paris as a “Global City” – The Rivkin offensive is the latest in a long-time program of undermining French identity. France is a dichotomy of cosmopolitanism as the result of its bourgeois revolution of 1789, while nonetheless maintaining a stubborn traditionalism and nationalism, which the globalists term “xenophobia.” It is manifested in even small ways such as the legal obligation of French public servants and politicians to only speak to foreign media in French, regardless of their knowledge of any other language; or the widespread resistance in France to McDonald’s. France, like much of the rest of the world, is however fighting a losing battle against globalization. Jeff Steiner’s column “Americans in France,” refers to the manner by which the French at one time resisted the opening of the American fast food franchise as “part of an American cultural invasion.” Steiner writes:
…That seems to be past as McDonalds has so become a part of French culture that it’s not seen as an American import any longer, but wholly French. In short, McDonalds has grown on the French just like in so many other countries.
McDonalds in Boulevard Voltaire, Paris.
I’ve been to a few McDonalds in France and, except for one in Strasbourg that looks from the outside to be built in the traditional Alsacien style, all McDonalds in France that I have seen look no different than their American counterparts.
Yes, there are those that still curse McDo (They are now a very small group and mostly ignored.) as the symbol of the Americanization of France and who also see it as France losing its uniqueness in terms of cuisine. The menu in a French McDonalds is almost an exact copy of what you would find in any McDonalds in the United States. It struck me as a bit odd that I could order as I would in the United States, that is in English, with the odd French preposition thrown in.
If truth were told, the French who eat at McDonalds are just as much at home there as any American could be.
This seemingly minor example is actually of much importance in showing just how a culture as strong as that of, until recently, an immensely proud nation, can succumb, especially under the impress of marketing towards youngsters. It is a case study par excellence of the standardization that American corporate culture entails. It is what the globalist elite desire on a world scale, right down to what one eats. It is notable that the vanguard of the initial resistance to the opening of McDonald’s came from farmers, a traditionalist segment of Europe’s population that are becoming increasingly anomalous, and will under the globalist regime become an extinct species in the process of agricultural corporatization.
Nonetheless, given France’s historical role of maintaining sovereignty in the face of US interests, even in the current time with its frequent criticism of the war against Iraq, France remains one of the few potentially annoying states in Europe. An added concern is that the French, despite their acceptance of McDonald’s, and their liking for American trash TV, will translate the remnants of their “xenophobia” into the election to Office of a stridently anti-globalist party, as reflected in the electoral ups and downs of the Front National, whose policy would not be in accord with either US foreign policy, or with privatization and cultural Americanization. Hence the Front National, like other anti-globalist parties, can be attacked by red-herring slogans about “racism” and “hate” to deflect from the real concern which is anti-globalization. This is a major reason for Rivkin’s far-reaching subversive and interventionist program to assimilate Muslims into French society, which in so doing would also have the result of fundamentally transforming French consciousness into a more thoroughly cosmopolitan mold. The intention is clear enough in the Rivkin Embassy documents where it is stated that the Embassy will monitor the effects of the “outreach” program on the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.”
R J Barnet and R E Müller in their study of the global corporation, Global Reach, which was based on interviews with corporate executives, showed that the French business elite have long been seeking to undermine the foundations of French tradition. Jacques Maisonrouge, president of the IBM World Trade Corporation “likes to point out that; ‘Down with borders’, a revolutionary student slogan of the 1968 Paris university uprising – in which some of his children were involved – is also a welcome slogan at IBM.” Maisonrouge stated that the “World Managers” (as Barnett and Muller call the corporate executives) believe they are making the world “smaller and more homogeneous.” Maisonrouge approvingly described the global corporate executive as “the detribalized, international career men.” It is this “detribalization” that is the basis of a world consumer culture required to more efficiently create a world economy.
In the 1970s Howard Perlmutter and Hasan Ozekhan of the Wharton School of Finance Worldwide Institutions Programme prepared a plan for a “global city.” Paris was chosen for the purpose. Prof. Perlmutter was a consultant to global corporations. His plan was commissioned by the French Government planning agency on how best to make Paris a “global city.” Perlmutter predicted that cities would become “global cities” during the 1980s. For Paris this required “becoming less French” and undergoing “denationalization.” This, he said, requires a “psycho-cultural change of image with respect to the traditional impression of ‘xenophobia’ that the French seem to exclude.” The parallels with the current Rivkin program are apparent. Perlmutter suggested that the best way of ridding France of its nationalism was to introduce multiculturalism. He advocated “the globalization of cultural events” such as international rock festivals, as an antidote to “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture.”
Is this aim of undermining France’s “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture” the purpose of Rivkin’s interest in associations between Hollywood and French culture, as reported by the PCIP itself in regard to the delegation that met in France in 2010, when, “the delegation explored the connections between media and culture in California (Hollywood) and France.” Rivkin knows the value of entertainment in transforming attitudes, especially among the young. After working as a corporate finance analyst at Salomon Brothers, Rivkin joined The Jim Henson Company in 1988 as director of strategic planning. Two years later, he was made vice president of the company. The Jim Henson Company, while producing the endearing characters of “Sesame Street,” had a social agenda directed at toddlers. The social engineering purpose becomes evident when one recalls that the production was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the US Office of Education. Lawrence Balter, professor of applied psychology at New York University, wrote of the production that it, “…introduced children to a broad range of ideas, information, and experiences about diverse topics such as death, cultural pride, race relations, people with disabilities, marriage, pregnancy, and even space exploration.” The series was the first to employ educational researchers, with the formation of a Research Department. Of passing interest is that the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation are also patrons of the Pacific Council on International Policy. Whether one thinks that such methods aimed at pre-schoolers are laudable depends on one’s perspective, just as one might agree with the Rivkin program of inculcating French youth with globalist ideals in the service of “American interests.”
Creating the World Consumer: Homo Economicus: “The Global Me” – As Chomsky has pointed out, global capitalism sees humanity in terms interchangeable cogs in the production and consumption cycle. The summit of corporate human evolution is transformation into “detribalized, international career men” described enthusiastically by G Pascal Zachary, financial journalist, as being an “informal global aristocracy”, recruited over the world by the corporations, depending totally on their companies and “little upon the larger public,” a new class unhindered by national, cultural or ethnic bonds.
Barnett and Müller quoted Pfizer’s John J Powers as stating that global corporations are “agents for change, socially, economically and culturally.” They stated that global executives see “irrational nationalism” as inhibiting “the free flow of finance capital, technology and goods on a global scale.” A crucial aspect of nationalism is that “differences in psychological and cultural attitudes, that complicate the task of homogenizing the earth into an integrated unit…. Cultural nationalism is also a serious problem because it threatens the concept of the Global Shopping Center.”
It is this “cultural nationalism” which is described by Rivkin, and all other partisans of globalism, as “xenophobia,” unless that “xenophobia” can be marshaled in the service of a military adventure when bribes, embargoes and threats don’t bring a reticent state into line, as in the cases of Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. Then the American globalist elite and their allies become “patriots,” but still don’t seem to do much combat.
Barnet and Müller cite A W Clausen when he headed the Bank of America, as stating that national, cultural and racial differences create “marketing problems”, lamenting that there is “no such thing as a uniform, global market.” Harry Heltzer, Chief Executive Officer of 3M stated that global corporations are a “powerful voice for world peace because their allegiance is not to any nation, tongue, race or creed but to one of the finer aspirations of mankind, that the people of the world may be united in common economic purpose.” (AKA “Just playing the capitalist roulette,” already sufficiently rigged by the 1%.)
These “finer aspirations of mankind,” known in other quarters as greed, avarice, Mammon-worship… have despoiled the earth, caused economic imbalance, and operate on usury that was in better times regarded as sin. These “finer aspirations,” by corporate reckoning, have caused more wars than any “xenophobic” dictator, usually in the name of “world peace,” and “democracy.”
The Rivkin doctrine for France — which must be carried out in a subtle manner — is a far-reaching subversive program to transform especially the young into global clones devoid of cultural identity, while proceeding, in the manner of Orwellian “doublethink” in the name of “multiculturalism.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The Foreign Policy Journal bioblurb indicates that Kerry R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (Athens), and the Institute for Higher Studies on Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (Lisbon). He has doctorates in theological studies, Ph.D. h.c. and certifications in psychology and social work studies. He has been widely published by the scholarly and wider media on a variety of subjects.
However, the Wiki page dedicated to Bolton, which may well be influenced by his enemies, states, that Kerry Raymond Bolton (born 1956) is a far-right, conservative and social credit writer in New Zealand[1] who has been active in several organisations. Further on we read: “Bolton was a co-founder of the Nationalist Workers’ Party,[2] and was briefly secretary for the New Zealand Fascist Union in 1997,[5] in which he promoted the ‘patriotic socialism’ of 1930s Labour hero John A. Lee.[6] In 2004 he was the secretary of the New Zealand National Front[7][8][9] and spokesman[discuss] for the New Right group.[10][11] He was also involved for several years with the New Zealand National Front during the late 1970s and in 2004.[12] However, Bolton soon resigned because of disputes with neo-Nazi and white supremacist factions..”
Research Links:
Originally Posted on May 14, 2011 by sundance
[printfriendly]
