24-04-2012, 06:16 PM
Stan Wilbourne Wrote:Quote:Upon a superficial examination, one would tend to think that the book will appeal to the Bible-thumping, right-wing populists of the John Birch fringe who despise the Rockefellers. This band of the American political spectrum, which has been known to publicize bizarre allegations of a Rockefeller--orchestrated plot to create a socialist world government, will be baffled and perplexed by one of Thy Will be Done's chief conclusions: that they've been had. According to Colby and Dennett, far from being a threat to the Machiavellian power of the Rockefellers, the Christian fundamentalists were extremely useful in furthering the global designs of the heirs of the Standard Oil fortune.
On the other hand, left-leaning liberals will find the book's conclusions even harder to swallow, since the Rockefeller philanthropies (which include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund) are among the main funding sources of liberal political activism in the US, including civil liberties, feminism and the environmental movement. Beneficiaries of Rockefeller charitable giving in recent years have included groups like Essential Information, the ACLU, the Ms. Foundation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Environmental Action, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, the Center for Responsive Politics, the NAACP who are much more likely to say, "Wait, you're being a little unbalanced. Sure, they've done terrible things in the past, but they're funding some really terrific stuff nowadays." As much as one may try to rationalize the embarassing predicament of taking money from the ultra-rich to finance social change, the question remains: What are the prospects for an American progressive agenda when it is heavily dependent on funding from a philanthropic system that owes its forhine to commercial activities that destroy ecosystems worldwide, erode biological diversity and create a holocaust for indigenous peoples? Colby and Dennett do not pose that question to readers, but it will certainly hover ominously over the mind of any American reader whose political beliefs are at least five degrees to the left of National Public Radio or The New Republic.
Thanks, Jan.
Great piece that Jan. I really do agree. What it's seemed to me is that the right don't really get, how these guys like to hedge their bets and double dip. I think on the left due to having something more of a structural analysis, it's something many can grasp. But as you say mate, it's something the left sure as shit don't want to talk about if at all. Well I mean they aren't really even left. They are faux posers as far as I can tell (which is precisely your point). I dig what you have said about the future of progressive politics being funded by what are ultimately private interests. It irks me for example when I see PBS documentaries and National Geographic specials sponsored by shit like the Ford Foundation. While I agree that there may well be some form of coercion. One of the things you and I have come across in our respective countries are affluent people who may vote Green for the local council but Tory for the government, or under MMP in New Zealand vote for a National with the party vote and the green candidate (whose going to do shite). So yeah it's crazy stuff isn't it.
As for CD's comments concerning the CIA false sponsor line. I have to say that while no one believes the CIA in their entirety were involved. They have been involved in covering up numerous facts about members of the agencies likely involvement. As CD has also noted they have spread a ton of shite conspiracy angles themselves. Funnily enough Jim Garrison in later interviews never implicated the entire agency. Nor did Prouty. What they both did was target the Dulles faction of the CIA. As for the bigger picture I've enjoyed all of the comments that Vas, Jan, CD and others have made. I can't rightly say I know it all. Dulles really troubles me though. Nobodies master but sure as punch nobodies slave either. His family are just out and out weird.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992