It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, ... and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions" (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 ) "Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting "civil society" leaders into the inner circles of power --while simultaneously repressing the rank and file-- serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization "must make concessions" to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should --under what is euphemistically called democracy-- be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says "there is no alternative" to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an ineffective "give and take".
The term "manufacturing consent" was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky. "Manufacturing consent" describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and "inculcate individuals with values and beliefs...": The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. (Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky) "Manufacturing consent" implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. "Manufacturing consent" describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.
In this article, we focus on a related concept, namely the subtle process of "manufacturing dissent" (rather than "consent"), which plays a decisive role in serving the interests of the ruling class. Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words, "manufacturing dissent" acts as a "safety valve", which protects and sustains the New World Order. To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement
In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall Street in recent years have been recycled to the elites' tax exempt foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only been used to buy out politicians, they have also been channelled to NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups, environmentalists, alternative media, human rights groups, etc. "Manufactured dissent" also applies to the "corporate left" and "progressive" media, funded by NGOs or directly by the foundations. The inner objective is to "manufacture dissent" and establish the boundaries of a "politically correct" opposition. In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.
The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people's movement into a vast "do it yourself" mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war. Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate "issue oriented" protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women's rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People's Summits of the 1990s.
The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue", cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:
We are dealing with a diabolical process: The host government finances the official summit as well as the NGOs actively involved in the Counter-Summit. It also funds the multimillion dollar anti-riot police operation which has a mandate to repress the grassroots participants of the Counter-Summit, including members of NGOs direcly funded by the government. . The purpose of these combined operations, including violent actions of vandalism committed by undercover cops (Toronto G20, 2010) dressed up as activists, is to discredit the protest movement and intimidate its participants. The broader objective is to transform the counter-summit into a ritual of dissent, which serves to uphold the interests of the official summit and the host government. This logic has prevailed in numerous counter summits since the 1990s.
Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by jlv70
However from your op Every group pro or con has been infiltrated and is controlled by the PTB...left, or right. I only used the Tea Party as an example. I meant no harm or disrespect towards Tea Partiers, and I agree with alot of what they have to say, But if you re read what the op posted, it's just a illusion or a shadow of what it was meant to be, and was used quite effectively in conning the voter and motivating them to come out and vote. This is key, it made people believe in the system again. A very good indication that this is true was the record breaking money that was put into the recent mid term election. They inspired you to vote, and this vote helped the very same party that is responsible for the situation we are currently in.
It doesn't matter who you voted for, because the PTB is behind the scenes on both sides. Notice how there is no change in foreign policy and issues like the patriot act, gitmo, and the wars?? There is no difference because the same groups directs all....We need to understand this as a group!
reply to post by stephinrazin
95% to 99% isn't enough to be grass roots, the media attacks the Tea Party to give it's members some sort of justification to have hope. Then the Tea Party's rhetoric scares the hell out of right wing republicans, then off to the polls they all flocked, thinking they were voting for CHANGE. Does anyone here expect any change in the next 2 years? Will gitmo close? Will the wars end? Will deficit spending end? Will the Fed lose any power or influence? Will the government serve the people or continue to serve the corporations? Will lobbying end? Will special interests end? Will the rises in taxes end? Will we keep losing our liberties and freedoms? The 5% to 1% is who controls the Tea Party....This is what the article posted is telling us.
What political party benefited the most from the rise of the Tea Party? Was this the intention of any Tea Party member?
Im not attacking the Tea Party, you could replace the name with any other political or social group. Just using it as a example....
Come on ATS lets here your opinions on the OP story!!!! This is huge, and should be discussed at length.
Originally posted by LDragonFire
In my opinion the Tea Party is a great example of a grass roots effort hijacked completely by the PTB.
Great find and thanks for sharing...
The original Tea Party in Boston was a false flag
operation created by American Freemasons to start a war between the British Monarchy and
the native tribes. Both sides would weaken themselves and then the revolutionaries would rise
up , throw out the British and seize "cleared" Indian lands in the Ohio Valley and beyond.
Likewise , the current "Tea Party" movement is a psyops or spyops. An illuminati propaganda
font or front that pretends to oppose Obama. He is a CIA asset as well. His father was too.