portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

Ever wonder how much of what shows up in mass culture is planted there to keep you under control? Think about it. If PsyOps people are busy at work don't you think the mass culture is one of the ruling elites targets?
Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite
By Daniel Brandt

Opportunity is rapidly vanishing, poorly masked by an institutionalized
preference for diversity. Leftist academics in ivory towers are hooked on
designer victimology but fail to notice the real victims -- the entire
next generation. Meanwhile the rich get richer.
Have a nice New World
Order.

Anyone who follows today's academic debates on multiculturalism, and by happenstance is also familiar with the power-structure research that engaged students in the sixties and early seventies, is struck by that old truism: the only thing history teaches us is that no one learns from history. By now it's even embarrassing, perhaps because of our soundbite culture. Not only must each generation painstakingly relearn, by trial and error, everything learned by the previous generation, but it's beginning to appear that we have to relearn ourselves that which we knew a scant twenty years earlier. The debate over diversity is one example of this.

********************************************************************************

The full article is too long for the text story space so the balance can be found at the following link:

 http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1458

yeah, spielberg doesn't let his kids watch TV 17.Nov.2002 20:37

FWR

maybe,

speilberg doesn't let his own kids watch TV, and that is true of most of the rest of Hollywood. Its only designed to lower the general populations IQ, not the Hollywood left's..

--FWR

Pennies from Heaven Disturb the Atheist 18.Nov.2002 01:08

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

The article the original poster linked to has a whining tone. What's the big problem? The ruling elite was FORCED to make concessions to the disenfranchised, yet the article seems to see this as bad simply because it came from the top. YES, it was Psy-Ops, but i will take that if it means a fair shake for those who are not white males. The political elite HAD to do that, to save their asses. It was like reparations, and well-deserved reparations. I see it as good that women are allowed more professional and economic independance, and that people who aren't white got business grants/loans and were allowed to work at better jobs. The only way this was possible was to affect the whole of popular culture. Look at it this way: Those In Charge HAD to save their own asses -- the 60s and 70s were leading straight to nothing less than a revolution. THEY were merely providing a safe, profitable revolution in place of an all-out-MFing-class-and-race revolution. It's good to recognize that it was a mere placation, but it's good to recognise that it was all the agitating and threatening of the activists that FORCED them to make these social concessions. They were scared out of their minds they would lose their moneymoneyMONEY. To say that history is bunk is BS. History can be propaganda for the ruling elite, but history can also be propaganda for THE PEOPLE (It's just harder to come by). Corporate history IS bunk, true. But let's not write it all off. There's some excellent work out there - illuminating and pertinent to the present. Don't be so afraid of the CIA when they are backpedaling and full of fear and doing what we want for once. Just chuckle and tell em "good work, a**holes" when they do that. Don't worry, original poster; white males will still get by SOMEHOW. Sheesh.

What is true for you .... 18.Nov.2002 11:00

Diogenes

Gringo, gringo - what's a thinking man to do - "buy you books, send you to school, and what do you do? Eat the teacher." (Apologies to Marti and Rossi)

The whole point - which you seemed to have missed is confuse, divide, and conquer.

Yes the 60's were heading towards revolution. Yes from the ruling elite's point of view it had to be diffused.

So how do you do that?

Were there injustices commited toward minorities? Were they disenfranchised? Of course they were only a self deluded fool would argue otherwise. Were women to some degree relegated to second class status - ditto. But there was movement toward change - movement that was upsetting to the elites and their treasured status quo - with them in power.

However, the strategy to counter this movement was to get us backbiting each other - the point which is consistently missed by people praising victimology for "people of color" is that Whites are just as victimized by the elites. If you are not born into the right family, do not attend the "right" schools, go to the "right" church, and weasel your way in you are just as locked out and it does nothing to have the "right" skin color. You are just as damned and just as hobbled as someone with the "wrong" skin color. While I don't care for the insanity of Corporate America and choose not to play. I stil dislike praising and pushing prejudice regardless of how you label it. It engenders resentment. Resentment breeds division and the ruling elites just love it. This is classic PsyOps. When you buy the victim spin you are furthering the problem by supporting division and "get the bastards back" victimology. This creates a self replicating cycle of violent action, violent retaliation, violent action, violent retaliation .... All the while taking revenge upon people who did not propagate the problem in the first place and blunting opposition directed against those who did.

The 60's push towards an open society where we truly recognize that ALL PEOPLE have worth was blunted by the kind of PsyOps laid out in the above article.

HOMEWORK:

Suggested Reading Assignment:

Do a Google Search on "COINTELPRO".
(WhatReallyHappened.Com has a good primer on the permanent menu side.)

Look up the CIA's involvement in the Drug Trade and how via COINTELPRO and other programs Drugs were introduced into the the 60's movements to blunt and diffuse the move toward some form of justice. (Stoners don't accomplish much.)

If you are really feeling industrious get hold of a copy of Charlotte Iserbyte's book: "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

Look at how the PR Industy is used to sell counterproductive ideas and behavior to the Sheeple.
Deforming Consent:  http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq55.prwar.html

I could add a lot more links but I have no desire to insult you - just inform.

Just for good measure, and because it is historically interesting:
Kennedy and the Federal Reserve:  http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=89


" A man's mind stretched to contain a new idea never returns to it's former dimension."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes Snr.


I would add that accurate history IS. "Just the fact's ma'am." The moment it becomes the "Ruling Elite's History" or "The People's History" it is shaded to a particular viewpoint and becomes to that degree distorted.
Real History is: "The exact time, place, form, and event." Nothing more, nothing less.

Dig it, if you can... 18.Nov.2002 14:49

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

I am well aware of COINTELPRO, which, in my opinion, extends to today and includes the manufactures East/west-coast rap feud and the assassinations of Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac Shakur to fuel it. I am also well aware of the corporate plan to make grown children, and hence perfect, unquestioning consumers/factory workers, out of US school-children. John Taylor Gatto has excellent sources for this (link included at the end of this comment). I am well aware of the overblown PR Industry and how it manufactures or deforms consent - I posted the article about the Rendom Group that made the impending Iraq attack publicly feasible.

And it is true that poor white men, as always, have it bad and not nearly as good as middle or upper-class white males. But the fact remains that white people STILL have it much better than blacks, and men STILL have it much better than women. Any intelligent human is not divided by these facts, if they are aware of them. Whining when you still have the advantage isn't attractive, or very perceptive. The two of us both know that class is the decisive factor in determining control of one's life. But the right's complaints are STILL not genuine, despite their shared recognance of the evil of the ruling elite. I still don't like to hear such silliness as "they're taking away from white men's jobs" only because white men are STILL not at a disadvantage. Racism and sexism are still in effect, although (happily) not the social norms they used to be.

Concerning your ideas on history: You buy into the corporate myth of "objectivity" in history. As a poster on non-corporate media, I thought that you would know: there is no such thing as "objectivity" in news or in history. And when someone takes that (corporate) stance, they are merely feeding into the status quo's plans. When someone presents "just the facts" they still have to consider WHAT facts to present, HOW to present them, and since they can't just list an almanac of statistics with every article, there will be facts left out. The facts they leave out are facts too. I suggest more Chomsky or Philips or other journalist/linguistic experts to educate yourself on the corporate myth of "objectivity." To pretend, as the corporate media does, that they are being "objective," is to pretend that you are a person with no opinions on any subject, no emtions regarding any subject matter, and have NO stake in ANYTHING, ever. that is BS. You know this. "Just the facts" is one way of presenting the facts that are pertinent to your propaganda, while seeming to be above the fray. No one is above having an opinion, and pretending that you don't is a lie. "Facts" are chosen by the source, by the pertinance to one's propaganda, and to how they fit in with one's world opinion and aims. All history is seen through the lens of human minds, and ALL human minds have preconceived notions, regardless of how robotic ("objective") you pretend to be. "Objectivity" is a way for people to learn news and history with the implicit corporate message to "be levelheaded"

public education's corporate agenda 18.Nov.2002 22:36

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Here's the link to John Taylor Gatto's brief 10-page introduction to the history of how corporate America tailored public education into the manufacture of grown children, perfect for consuming and working at factories:


Potpourri 19.Nov.2002 10:58

Diogenes

Dear Gringo,
Thanks for the reference. I respect John Taylor Gatto - for those of you not familiar with him he was acknowledged as one of the BEST teachers in America - NYC Teacher of the Year. He quit in disgust at what was being done with government schools. Charlotte Iserbyte, whom I referenced above, comes at it from the other end of the spectrum - she worked in the Reagan Administration's Education Department and got fired for leaking some very damning documents. However, the two converge in their conclusions: Public (read GOVERNMENT schools) exist as brainwashing centers to churn out worker ants for the Corporate Hive. You don't see the elites sending their kids to Government Schools. An interesting statistic is that in the mid 90's a study was done of Chicago Public School Teachers - over 50% of them sent their own kids to PRIVATE Schools.

As to the issue of "objective History". I agree that the author of any history is going to write from their own viewpoint. Limited space and time, if nothing else, dictate whittling down your presentation to just those elements central to your study. Since "absolutes are unobtainable" in the real world you are always going to have some coloration based upon the authors viewpoint. When I argue for honest history I mean accurate recounting of the facts - and not using spurious or invented "facts" to support one's argument. And not tailoring the facts to a hidden agenda i.e., propaganda. You'll never have a perfect history but like all ideals of value it is worthy of striving towards. Integrity demands it. I am old-fashioned in that regard. I will not knowingly forward a falsehood as truth. I may err, I am but one humble man, but I will not lie to make my point.

"If you always tell the truth you never have to remember what you said." I forget the correct attribution - Twain or Mencken I think.

Humankind tends to be somewhat Xenophobic - and giving advantage to members of one's own group whether it be based on skin color, religion, or place of origin is the norm. Mind you I am not saying I approve but it is the norm. Virulent racial prejudice is propagated by small minds that are twisted and warped. Thankfully their number, if you look at it "objectively", is quite small.

Me I'm the Multicultural Kid my ancestry has so many different threads that I love you all - we're related somewhere along the line.

Propaganda isn't a dirty word 19.Nov.2002 13:46

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Propaganda never used to be a dirty word. The U.S. started using it as a dirty word once our military enemies started using it effectively.

definitions of "propaganda"...
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause

Propaganda does not mean disinformation - that is a popular misconception. whenever you are trying to convince someone of anything while using hard facts, that is propaganda. Propaganda does not mean "hidden agenda" like you claim. In fact, I dislike "objective" history because it hides its agenda. I can better trust someone who openly claims their agenda and beliefs. If they pretend towards or strive for "objectivity" then I know they are lying by ommision, and hence cannot be trusted. i hate spurious or invented history too, which is why I like footnotes and provided sources and bibliographies in histories I read.

Twain and Mencken were both propagandists, and you knew where they stood. And their every word advanced their own personal agendas. I love their work.

"I don't want to hear both sides of the story. I am not a fair man, and I dislike debates."
-- H.L. Mencken

You should read, if you haven't already, about the invention of racism (in the 17th century) in Howard Zinn's "The Peoples' History of The United States" -- he talks of how ethnocentrism practised throughout history was never the same after the slavery-rationalising racism of America. Racism is not the norm you take it to be. Beliefs change, although slowly.

By the way, I like the name DIOGENES, one of the best philosophers ever.