Stop the FTAA!  
Organized Anarchy
By William F. Jasper

Source: The New American, June 19, 2000

Street-level revolutionaries, such as those protesting the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, are merely puppets whose strings are being pulled by the real revolutionaries behind the scenes.


In the earliest stages of the French Revolution, it became apparent to the most alert observers that the anarchy and terror in the streets were being financed and directed from above, by extremely powerful and wealthy individuals within the aristocracy itself. Foremost among these “silk hat revolutionaries” was Louis Philippe Joseph, fifth Duc d’ Orleans, a distant cousin to King Louis XVI, and a thoroughly dissolute reprobate. The Duc and his agents were constantly circulating amongst the street rabble and rioters, providing funds and inspiration to incite chaos and turmoil.

Nicolas Chamfort, one of the Duc d’Orleans’ co-conspirators, admitted to Jean Francois Marmontel that it was Orleaniste gold that had paid for a scurvy band of thugs to initiate the riot that destroyed the factory of a generous philanthropist, Reveillon, who had always assisted the poor with jobs and benefactions. “Money,” said Chamfort, “and the hope of plunder are all-powerful with the people. We have just made the experiment in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine [a section of Paris], and you would not believe how little it cost the Duc d’Orleans to get them to sack the manufactory of the honest Reveillon.... Mirabeau cheerfully asserts that with 100 louis one can make quite a good riot.”

It is also worth noting that the Duc d’Orleans, the Duc de Biron, the Marquis de Sillery, and their degenerate companions relied heavily on the dregs of Parisian and Marseillais society to carry out their brutish work. The Duc d’Orleans had converted his Palais Royal into a pleasure dome of depravity, a circus of entertainment — gambling, magic, sporting events, prostitution, drinking, revelry — the better to have always at-the-ready a rowdy mob of besotted ruffians. When these bandits then went out to attack “the nobility” and sack the estates of “the aristocracy,” Orleans and his aristocratic confreres, of course, had nothing to fear in the way of danger to their persons and property.

“The popular Revolution,” said Louis Antoine de St. Just, one of the most vile and vicious of the revolutionists, “was the surface of a volcano of extraneous conspiracies.” As one of the Revolution’s arch-conspirators, a genuine insider, St. Just was in a good position to know.

Writing as an informed outsider, Lord Acton also realized that what was seen on the surface told only a small part of the real story. The British historian observed in his Lectures on the French Revolution: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first.”

The Battle in Seattle

The foregoing has been brought forcefully to mind by the reappearance of 1960s-style street activism and the escalating incidence of violent street demonstrations, rioting, and anarchy associated with various and sundry left-wing causes. The most notable, but far from the only, examples of this activism in recent months have centered around opposition to the World Trade Organization and policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

On November 30, 1999, as tens of thousands of eco-fanatics, animal rights militants, and union members marched and demonstrated in Seattle in protest against the World Trade Organization, things turned decidedly ugly. Civil disobedience turned into violent pandemonium as hundreds of rioters overwhelmed police and went on a violent rampage. In scenes eerily reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago Democrat National Convention or Kent State, Marxist hoodlums turned downtown Seattle streets surrounding the WTO conference site into a war zone. Smashing store windows, setting fires, overturning cars, battling police, shutting down traffic, and roughing up pedestrians and WTO delegates, the demonstrators forced Mayor Paul Schell to declare a state of emergency. Two hundred National Guardsmen and 300 Washington State Police were rushed in to help restore and maintain order. More than 500 demonstrators were arrested and millions of dollars in property damage was done. Incalculably more damage was inflicted on the body politic.

Much of the violence and disorder that erupted in Seattle has been attributed to a few bands of militant anarchists marching under such labels as the Ruckus Society, the Black Clad Messengers, Direct Action, and the Anarchist Action Collective. Demonstrators, reporters, and law enforcement personnel reported that the instigators of the rioting were dressed in black, wore masks, and coordinated their actions with other anarchist cells by means of walkie talkies and cell phones.

How’s that for an oxymoron: organized anarchists? It’s actually not as oxymoronic as it sounds. Those familiar with the history of anarchism and anarchists know that these architects of chaos have ever been highly organized and frequently in the pay of hidden forces. Captain Michael Schaack of the Chicago Police Department learned this firsthand over one hundred years ago, when he began his investigation of the network of anarchist assassins who had carried out the infamous Haymarket riots and bombing. In his monumental and meticulously documented study, Anarchy and Anarchists, published in 1889, Captain Schaack traced the incredibly well-organized conspiracy of international anarchists operating throughout Europe and the United States.

Things have not changed much in that respect since Captain Schaack’s day, as we will show. The claque of thugs who manufactured mayhem in Seattle, whether they realize it or not, are actors in an elaborate con game. They are fomenting tumult and distractions from below to provide cover for the even more dangerous revolutionaries above, who are the supposed targets of the anarchists’ ire. Likewise, their slightly less militant colleagues — even many of those who denounced the anarchists’ violent tactics — are also shills and provocateurs for the corporate globalists they so vehemently decry. The leadership of Big Green and Big Labor, who turned out the troops for the Seattle spectacle, are thick as thieves with the hated “multinational companies” and “global capitalists” against whom they regularly inveigh.

Not long after the charade in Seattle, many of the same protesters showed up in Washington, D.C. for the spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Arrests and violence were down considerably, but the determined demonstrators disrupted traffic and conference schedules and managed to grab evening news headlines.

Strange Bedfellows

Many Americans have been thoroughly nonplussed with the antics and rhetoric of the anti-globalist zealots, often finding themselves in agreement with many of the slogans, but uncomfortable with the political orientation, lifestyles, and methods of the demonstrators. Banners and shouts denouncing the WTO’s infringement on national sovereignty and proclaiming “No New World Order” resonated with constitutionalists fed up with the UN’s steady encroachments, conservatives upset with IMF/WB waste of taxpayers money, and workers exasperated with the loss of jobs to China and other subsidized markets. But many of these same folks were less than enamored of the motley assortment of repellent Marxoid activists leading the protest against various aspects of “globalization.” Cognitive dissonance was further heightened as Reform Party Perotistas and Buchananites, along with farmers and pro-life activists, linked arms with Clintonista habitués of the radical left.

The targets of these recent attacks are the institutions that trace back to the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference held in New Hampshire during the closing days of World War II. Out of that international palaver came three global organizations — the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, the forerunner to the WTO), the IMF, and the World Bank. GATT’s ostensible purpose was to facilitate global prosperity and promote peaceful international relations by establishing rules for international trade. The World Bank was set up to loan money to projects that would help lesser developed countries out of poverty. The IMF’s stated reason for existence was to stabilize national currencies.

Like the United Nations, which was established the following year, in 1945, these global entities were the handiwork of the one-world brain trust operating out of the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), also known as the Rockefeller State Department. Like the UN, these institutions have been colossal failures — if judged by their reputed purposes. Judged by other standards, however, they have been whopping successes. If, for instance, one favors, “economic integration,” a world currency and world central bank, an end to national sovereignty, and, eventually, world government, then the “failures” of GATT, the IMF, and World Bank take on a distinctly different appearance. From this point of view, their policies, which have promoted global monetary destabilization, impossible debt loads, and an epidemic of national bankruptcies, are to be wildly applauded because they are forcing nations to abandon sovereignty in exchange for “interdependence” and “globalization.”

Indeed, unabashed apologias for world government are popping out all over. A case in point is the cover story by Robert Wright in the January 17th issue of The New Republic, the venerable left-wing voice of the CFR Establishment. The celebratory headline on the cover states: “America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray.” Inside, Mr. Wright admonishes us in a cheeky heading: “World government is coming. Deal with it.” Wright notes that, “in recent years, more and more people have raised the specter of world government” and have sensed “an alarming concentration of planetary power in one or more acronyms: WTO, U.N., IMF, and so forth.” “Much power now vested in the nation-state is indeed starting to migrate to international institutions, and one of these is the WTO,” he acknowledges. We are not going to see full-blown world government “in the classic sense of the term” in the immediate future, says Wright. “But world government of a meaningful if more diffuse sort is probably in the cards.... And, what’s more, it’s a good idea.”

Mr. Wright is not alone in holding this wrong opinion, of course; he is simply more forthright than most of the elite opinion molders in the CFR thought cartel that holds sway at the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, network television, and most of the rest of the dominant media, the beltway think tanks, and academia. Most of these elitists adhere to the subversive notion of piecemeal sabotage and surrender of our national sovereignty as expressed by Professor Richard N. Gardner (CFR) in his seminal, 1974 article in the CFR’s official journal, Foreign Affairs. Entitled “The Hard Road to World Order,” Gardner’s essay foresaw the coming of the WTO as one of the necessary planks in the “house of world order” being built by him and his CFR confreres. Gardner, who is now Clinton’s ambassador to Spain, explained that this house “will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’... but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

Gardner specifically mentioned seeking new rules “for the conduct of international trade,” and a strengthening of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as necessary steps on the road to world order, which is CFR parlance for world government. In 1995, GATT was transformed into the WTO and invested with a growing corpus of powers.

Much of the effort to build this “house of world order” still looks like “booming, buzzing confusion.” And that is intentional, to hide the obvious design of the builders from the great unwashed, who might rise up and dash these plans to bits, if they recognized the prison walls being constructed about them. So the builders have invested a great deal in confusion artists, whose jobs are to provide plenty of booming and buzzing.

Which brings us to the Spring 2000 issue of Foreign Policy, which features a cover photo of confusion agent Lori Wallach, with the title“Why Is This Woman Smiling?” The subtitle answers the question: “Because she just beat up the WTO in Seattle, that’s why.” Inside this prestigious journal we find an admiring 27-page interview with Ms. Wallach by the editor of Foreign Policy, Moises Naim. Entitled, “Lori’s War,” the friendly dialogue begins by inviting us to “Meet Lori Wallach, leader of the anti-WTO protests in Seattle. Find out who she is, how she works, and what she plans to do next.”

But, before we do that, a word about the sponsor, Foreign Policy. Like the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy caters to an elite clientele of one-world policy wonks. It could be called a sister publication of Foreign Affairs. It is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (formerly run by Soviet agent Alger Hiss), which shares the same address (1779 Massachusetts Avenue) with the CFR’s Washington, D.C. office. That is not all the two organizations share; Foreign Policy’s editorial board, contributing editors, and stable of guest authors constitute a veritable CFR membership roster.

Why is the CFR Establishment lauding this “anti-Establishment” foe, who allegedly foiled key elements of their plans for “world order”? Several reasons, actually, but the main one we will examine here is the important task of establishing Ms. Wallach in the forefront of the “controlled opposition.” The Establishment’s members (and wannabe members) get the message that this individual is a vetted “go to” person for media interviews, sound bites, congressional testimony, etc.

In the preamble to its interview, Foreign Policy tells its elite audience that the earnest, bespectacled Wallach “is widely regarded as an intelligent, well-informed, and media-savvy political organizer.” (Not at all like those retrograde, right-wing, isolationist ignoramuses who have traditionally constituted the main opposition to the CFR’s globalist agenda.) The 36-year-old activist, we are told, “started her career working with Public Citizen, the public interest group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader” and is now the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch (GTW). Yes, now you’re beginning to see; she’s a lieutenant of one of the Establishment’s favorite revolutionaries. This is the same Comrade Nader who once proclaimed that the solution to America’s problems is “socialism or communism of one sort or another,” and who for the past three decades has been working for precisely that end.

In the course of her interview, Wallach admits that Global Trade Watch is funded by the Ford Foundation — another Establishment imprimatur! Like the Duc d’Orleans, the CFR’s silk hats who run the Ford Foundation have always had generous spigots for “acceptable” revolutionaries. They no doubt consider their investments in Citizens Nader and Wallach well spent. You see, Nader, Wallach, and others of their ilk in the vanguard of the “anti-WTO” movement are actually indispensable elements of the pincer strategy to make the WTO vastly more powerful. The main message these phonies have been sending from “below” is that the WTO’s single-minded concern with trade issues ignores and tramples on vital environmental and human issues such as wages, health care, labor union rights, etc. The WTO must be “fixed,” they say, and that means expanding WTO authority (or expanding current UN agencies, or creating new ones) to deal with these issues. “Perfect!” say the globalists (among themselves), while publicly proclaiming that they do not want that kind of expanded power. (“Please don’t throw us into that briar patch!”)

This strategy was partially revealed when Mr. Naim asked Wallach to explain her worldview and how things would be different under the scheme she envisions. “There would be a global regime of rules,” she answered, “that more than anything create the political space for the kinds of value decisions that mechanisms like the WTO now make, at a level where people living with the results can hold the decision makers accountable.” Somewhat vague about particulars, but it establishes the key point that she and the Naderite opposition are not essentially and unalterably opposed to the WTO globalism; they just want to tweak it to fit their own particular predilections. Or, as Robert Wright candidly (and very aptly) put it in his New Republic piece: “Even as they heap scorn on the notion of world government, they’re really arguing about what kind of world government we should have.”

Wallach goes on to state: “I would maintain a global regime of trading, because I would have tariff and quota rules, which need to be tweaked. And I would have international rules in other fora that would be given treatment equal to those commercial rules of the WTO. Alternatively, I would have some system of adjudicating between those sets of rules made by different multilateral bodies.” Moreover, she favors “empowering institutions such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), which right now is toothless and useless.” Asked if she was “in favor of creating a global organization to deal with environmental issues,” she answered, “I think there are merits to that.”

The one-world Establishment couldn’t ask for better opposition if they’d paid for it. But then, as we’ve already mentioned, they have paid for it. In fact, if you go to the Global Trade Watch website, you will find this interesting admission:
Thanks to initial support from the Ford Foundation, last year we launched a major project on international harmonization of standards that unites GTW and Public Citizen’s medical, legal, energy/environmental, and product/auto safety divisions. NAFTA and the WTO include requirements to either globally standardize regulatory policies or declare other nations’ standards as “equivalent.” We now work with numerous local, state, and federal policy-makers, and also with NGOs, to make them aware of these issues and facilitate their input and participation.

Follow the Money

The National Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and many of the other principal organizations providing shock troops for the street demonstrations are also longtime recipients of foundation largesse from Establishment fronts such as Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Pew, and MacArthur. If you want to know who’s calling the shots, look at who writes the checks. If the plans of the globalist Insiders were genuinely threatened by these “opponents,” would they continue to support them financially? What’s more, and just as important, would the leaders of these groups, like Wallach and Nader, continue to receive favorable treatment in the CFR-dominated media?

As mentioned earlier, nothing is really new here. In 1968, the very Establishment publisher, Random House, published The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, by James Kunen, a student revolutionary who had helped seize Columbia University. Kunen made this interesting admission of the powers behind the scenes that bankroll the pressure from below:
In the evening, I went up to the U. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] convention. He said that … at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables, the meeting 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 guys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They are the left wing of the ruling class.

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 center as they move to the left.

Former Black revolutionary Jerry Kirk provides another example, of many that could be cited, showing the pincer strategy in action. While a student at the University of Chicago, Kirk became active in the SDS, the DuBois Club, the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party. Not only did he observe the support provided by the Establishment during his revolutionary activities, but he was able to detect the strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below at work. Kirk broke from the Party 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 realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes....

Like the Parisian thugs and street rabble who were often found with the Duc d’Orleans’ gold louis in their pockets, many, if not most, of the street revolutionaries today are merely agents for the real revolutionaries who are calling the shots from behind the scenes.



© 2004