Monday, September 24, 2007

'Democracy'; From Political Concept to Propaganda Tool

The word 'democracy,' is today a valuable tool, an idea used to justify foreign ventures and world wars to; "make the world safe for democracy." A word which is often interchangeably used with the word "freedom," when we are told that we are so, especially when legislation or an executive order is introduced to take more of it from a fearful and unquestioning public. More recently, we saw the buzz word being thrown around to justify overthrowing yet another dictator, Saddam Hussein. A dictator originally put in place by the Fortune 500 mercenary organization, the CIA.

"....if you were to ask the average American if he or she finds it possible Saddam Hussein was groomed, financed, and supported by the CIA beginning with president John F. Kennedy -- who signed off on plan to overthrow the government of Iraq in 1963 -- chances are they wouldn't believe it. After all, we're the good guys, we do good in the world -- and that's why we're now attempting to track down Hussein and bring him to justice." Saddam Hussein: Taking Out the CIA's Trash

Once the "other reason" was deemed no longer possible to justify the second Iraqi great adventure, "democracy" became the word of choice, once again. I guess it made more sense than blurting out, "it's for the children."

Countless Americans have been psychologically damaged, maimed, and have died, as well as many more who were (and still are) duped, to achieve this goal, as stated for them. Democracy, which is certainly used in a positive sense in speech, debate or argument, when embedded in propaganda, is often used to obtain certain results such as war, or crowd kill operations of conscripted and voluntary combatants who either believe in their own home grown justifications, or merely fight to repel a foreign invader. Unfortunately, the destruction of civilian populations in the process has been more often than not, deliberate.

Since most Americans alive today have little idea why the United States decided to involve itself in the latter stages of World War I, we can direct our attention to the reasons used to get the United States into World War II. US involvement in this war was made easy by the use of the boogey-man fear tactic propaganda perpetrated upon the population as a means of fear-based mind control.

Who could argue that Hitler didn't need a military take-down to "make the world safe for democracy?" Who knows what a Germany under Hitler would have been capable of over time? But that's not the question. Indeed, but what about Hitler's origins? Are we to assume that Hitler and his gang naturally sprang up from obscurity thanks to early support and donations from the German citizenry and domestic grass roots organizations? The evidence would suggest otherwise as Hitler's climb to power was anything but a domestic affair.

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." William E. Dodd U.S. Ambassador to Germany 1937

I'll leave it to you to enter down that rabbit hole, should you wish to do so, with the following:

Taking a look at the last 100 years, it is apparent that the brilliant idea of having a war always originates from the top down. A large part of pre-war preparation efforts is scaring the bejesus out of the population. Notwithstanding the profit motive of the debt creation machine that is war, perpetual states of danger and fear percieved by the public do a fine job of justifying the publics' surrender of their freedom for the sake of security. A surrender of control to the administrators (and their handlers) of so called government.

"The myth that the United States is a democracy is probably a far stronger 'reality' in the minds of Americans than the actual reality that it is a tightly controlled secret oligarchy with a republican front. But in this case, which is the greater real reality? The American believes his myth enough that he dies for it. He fights the "war to end all wars" and then the "war to save the world FOR DEMOCRACY" (to quote some popular world war slogans). In the American mind, he achieves victory even though he has fought and died for a myth. And even when the mythical goals he fought for aren't even achieved, he believes he has achieved a victory." Fritz Springmeier

So, is there ever any justification for aggression against enemies foreign. Personally, I'll take a warrior's advice any day before politicians who make certain to keep their children safe from the wars that he or she sponsors.

Two time Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedly Butler, USMC:

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. General Smedly Butler, USMC

'Democracy' and the (non) NGO 'Tools'

As an example of how the term "democracy" is also a propandistic tool often engaged to provide cover for meddling clandestine operations, is the existence of Non-governmental Organizations. Entities Americans do not pay much attention to. A bit of fact checking beyond the MOCKINGBIRD national press reveals how, in one example, the National Endowment for Democracy (Bush's speech at NED, November 2003), a think tank which supposedly has no conflicts of interest and wants nothing better than to empower "the people," is a Non-Government Organization (NGO), which is engaged in doing the exact opposite.

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations and of cynicism. Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the "nongovernmental"-part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

Funds contributed by NED even included campaign money to a former CIA contract agent, Panama's Manuel Noriega, for a presidential candidate that he backed:
Because of a controversy in 1984-when NED funds were used to aid a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega and the CIA-Congress enacted a law prohibiting the use of NED funds "to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".

"Empowering" the people:

NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992. In Haiti in the late l990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology. NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries. "Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy" From the book, "Rogue State; A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"

US AID is another one of these "benevolent NGO" organizations (on the surface) with much information to the contrary, regarding uninvited meddling in the national affairs of foreign nations. Even the online dynamic encyclopaedia, WIKIPEDIA, recently revealed as having been tampered with by intelligence agencies, contract agents, FBI and a variety of other government agencies, confirms these allegations and discusses several other NGOs with alleged involvement in clandestine destabilization activities worldwide. There are also complaints from a Venezuelan perspective of how destabilization and overthrow of the current government of Venezuela has been ongoing. Such an allegation could be dismissed as biased, but the evidence from other sources would suggest otherwise to any critical thinking upright walking biped.
So what is the real purpose and motivation for the genesis and funding of these "nice" organizations with no religious affiliations? Are we to believe that there is no control or profit motive somewhere, less detectable downstream?

I'm done buy'in it.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Professional government propagandist, Edward Bernays in History as a Weapon