ER Editor: Below, journalist Dustin Broadbery for Off-Guardian makes a very compelling case for the state, and the corporate interests behind it, having co-opted activism in order to funnel it AWAY FROM USEFUL CITIZEN CAUSES. Extinction Rebellion, a Soros-funded group, gets an honourable mention below.
To bring this right up to date, RT France published a piece yesterday, titled «Orly, c’est fini» : des militants d’Extinction Rebellion investissent les pistes de l’aéroport (Orly Airport, it’s over: militants from Extinction Rebellion plant themselves on the runways). Just when one of Paris’ two major airports opens up to resume normal traffic and commerce (June 26), right on cue Extinction Rebellion are there to try to close down a vital part of France’s economic activity, insisting on an end to domestic French flights. This after 3 months of airport closure.
While we ignore the mass of chemtrails over Paris, while we ignore that the city is a festering mess of normal pollution – and the health problems that have arisen from that. While we ignore the massive economic plight of millions of French.
Keeping us distracted.
The Co-opting of Activism by the State
It is well documented that members of the police and intelligence communities have been infiltrating activist groups since the sixties. With covert spymasters rising in the ranks to hold influential leadership positions, guiding policy and strategy, and in some cases, radicalising those movements from within, in order to damage their reputation and weaken public support.
A judge-led public enquiry in the UK revealed at least 144 undercover police operations had infiltrated and spied on more than 1,000 political groups in long term deployments since 1968.
These days, rather than using coercion to suppress sedition, there is a body of evidence to suggest the state has devised more nefarious methods for countering subversion, involving the co-opting of grassroots movements, in its bid to transform the unbridled ideals of activism into genuflections of corporate and political interest.
Indeed, the denaturing of our social movements has engendered a culture of advocacy whereby it is no longer forged in the backyard of community and instead through a series of state-sponsored global debates, on authorised issues only, such as climate change.
The environmental movement, not to be confused with the ecological movement, appeals to our god-complex, and fantasises that our species holds dominion over nature, that our actions could somehow compromise the planet’s homeostasis.
An absurdity, when humanity is in fact the fragile child of a fierce, indomitable mother-nature, who can and does kick our proverbial arse, and rightly so, as punishment for romanticising our survival beyond the limit of our expiry date; a thrashing she has delivered punctually, in accordance with the cycles of her rhythm – renewing herself in the face of inevitable extinction – delivered to the ancestors of our ancestors, since the dawn of time. Welcome to the world.
It should also be noted, the consensual focus on the wrong environmental issues of the day provides some mild analgesic (or airbrush to sweep under the rug of blissful ignorance), the greater human pains we forget to experience, as a result of complicity in a social order which unleashes devastating inequality, poverty and famine, mostly to non-European habitants; and political disenfranchisement, stratification, and assault upon individualism, to the rest of us.
Extinction Rebellion campaigns on the politically prescribed bandwagon of the day, dressed as the proletariat, carrying the recycled torch of direct action dissidents from the eighties and nineties, who campaigned fiercely on bonafide issues, such as equality, sovereignty and political inclusion.
Yet, contrary to the ideals of those drowned out voices of civil disobedience, ER is courted by high profile financial donors and is aligned ideologically with multinational energy corporations and billionaire philanthropists, each vying for a fattened slice of the climate change pie. Making this motley crew anything but grass roots.
Another funder of ER is billionaire philanthropist, George Soros, who is, unsurprisingly, a seed investor in Avaaz, often cited as the world’s largest and most powerful online activist network. This paradoxical, head-scratching fiction, that would attempt to align the polarising ideals of activism and billionaires – as if the two would be commuted through mutual interest – is straight out of the pages of an elaborate science fiction novel set in a parallel universe.
The UK government, in granting rights of passage across key public access routes into Central London, to an assembly of ER, reeks of state-collusion, especially when the right to protest, decimated by the true bastion of civil liberties Tony Blair, was not granted to the hundred thousand students, who as teenagers and kids, protested the exorbitant, threefold increase in university tuition fees back in 2010. Who were instead subjected to brutal, would-be-illegal mistreatment by riot police, through appalling practices such as kettling.
Meanwhile, the bobbies on the beat at ER appeared cheerful and avuncular, almost sitting down ceremoniously to share sips of decaffeinated green tea from the festival flask.
Conveniently, ER’s ‘Circus of Excess’ takeover of Central London took place on April 12th 2019, one day after Julian Assange was arrested inside the Ecuadorian Embassy on April 11th, delivering a timely front page airbrush to whitewash the bigger story of Assange’s arrest and its grave ramifications to free speech and press freedom at large.
It is no coincidence that another Soros funded activism group, Black Lives Matter, has diverted the spotlight away from the lockdown’s broader impact on the fundamental human rights of billions of people, using the reliable methods of divide and rule, to highlight the plight of specific stratas of society, and not all.
It’s worth pointing out that BLM’s activity spikes every four years. Always prior to the elections in the US, as African Americans make up an important social segment of Democrat votes. The same Democrats who play both sides like any smart gambler would. The Clintons, for example, are investors into BLM”s partner, the anti-fascist ANTIFA. While Hilary Clinton’s mentor (and best friend) was former KKK leader Robert Byrd.
BLM is a massively hyped, TV-made, politicised event that panders to the populist and escapist appetite of the people, blinding them from their true call to arms in defence of the universal rights of everyone. Cashing in on the youths’ pent-up aggression (or post-lockdown syndrome). And weaponising the tiger locked in a rattled cage for 3-months, and unleashed by puppet masters as the mob.
The organisers of BLM make obvious their insincerity by omitting this crucial focal point on their banner, to a youth whose precious freedoms have been hijacked more than most throughout the draconian lockdown operation. The ramifications of which are predicted to impact 135 million people in Africa and other developing countries, who are facing devastating biblical famines, as a humanitarian catastrophe looms, which BLM are not protesting.
As a general rule of thumb, it is safe to assume that if a social movement has the backing of big industry, big philanthropy or big politics, then its ideals run contrary to citizen empowerment.
THE MOVEMENT FOR GENDER NEUTRALITY
Politically correct ‘activism,’ that falls short of the watershed, has replaced genuine social advocacy, that does not. Case in point is the unpleasant movement for gender-neutrality, which rejects the social constructs of masculine and feminine, and would replace those expletives with the linguistic root and pronoun, ‘they,’ ‘ze’ ,‘zir’ or ‘it’s,’ In other words, a pejorative-type rhetoric that sounds remarkably like the long hiss of air being slowly released from a punctured tyre.
The notion that we should transpose the sublime and nuanced qualities that aggregate our humanity with grammatical pronouns should be taken outside, trousers pulled down and bottom spanked. Especially when advocacy that campaigns for language to avoid distinguishing roles according to gender is, in fact, a reinforcement of those very roles. Equally ironic is the magnitude of media attention, pumped into amplifying these arbitrary platitudes, like hot air inflating a tyre.
As Jordan B Peterson points out, over the last five decades or so, psychologists have aggregated great numbers of personality trait features, using adjectives, phrases and sentences, throwing virtually every descriptor contained in human language into the mix, in a remarkably a-theoretical manner. The method? Describe people every which way imaginable. But not the fundamentals of who they actually are, right?
This white-noising of free speech into politically correct jargon is like a redundant traffic light system confusing our perception and distorting the value and distinction we would voluntarily place on one another. Taking us on a journey from humanism to grammatical grid system. As Peterson also points out – he has studied authoritarianism for a very long time – for 40 years – and they’re started by people’s attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory.
The ramifications of politically correct advocacy – that brings transgender into primary school classrooms – on the socialisation of children, is unhealthy and unnecessary to say the least. When a child’s mind – lacking the complexity of an adults – looks out onto the world with innocent myopia, it is without distinctions, and therefore unequipped to take on board and sort through the smorgasbord of gendered stratification, which even we as adults fail to comprehend much of the time.
We are all different, granted. But distinction must be respected for its virtue, rather than celebrated for its glamour. This is not a popularity contest. Trying to legitimise one form of normality over another validates that which is in focus, and sterilises all else. Creating even more separation in an already fragmented world, which in turn requires a lexicon of new placeholders and regulations to distinguish and protect this fragile territory. Counter intuitive, when the focus should be on individual freedom of expression (that is boundless and unbridled), rather than collective expression (that exists within pre-designated coordinates), where transgender becomes a box to climb into.
The sense of entitlement or right of way which any new need for legitimacy requires is indeed worrying. My own idiosyncrasies, for example, no matter how noble they resonate to me personally, are my own private affairs and not something I particularly wish to launder publicly, burden my neighbours with, attempt to mobilise a movement for, or challenge the status quo to transform public perception in defence of.
Why would anyone trading on their own distinctiveness want to be anything but a unique personification of themselves anyway? Rather than just another member of another club, in another normalised strata, of a normalised society. When the emphasis should be placed on individual rights, gender-neutralists do not present tangible arguments for preserving individual liberty and expression, and instead focus on the pseudo social value of even more separation and stratification.
Overall, could this perversion of our traditional touchstones be part of a broader agenda to disassemble our societal values, through a series of transformations that replace our nuanced ideals with state sponsored orthodoxies, our family values with social hierarchies, and our human identity with its symbol and pronoun?
Advertising brands have long understood the power of advocacy. For example, support for NHS workers by corporate brands like LEON involves the same marketing strategy exemplified in their corporate takeover of Gay Pride. The rainbow is almost copy/paste.
The unscrupulous machinations of advertising executives have long understood the power of promoting products directly to children, with many corporations employing professional psychologists to sufficiently get into a child’s mind, to influence their choices. The resulting Pester-power extends the consent from child to parent, and creates a chain reaction of peer pressure from one child’s parent to the next.
The recruiting of children into activism, that started with Greta and is now playing out in the UK’s national art project paying homage to the NHS, with rainbow paintings displayed in windows like National flags, is another psychological trick of the state that places insurmountable pressure on parents to assume rank and file within neighbourhood activism, or else face being ostracised.
Likewise, doorstep clapping advocacy for the NHS is another politically motivated flag-waving exercise in civil-obedience, which, like any other form of sincerity, expressed without spontaneity, is by definition, insincere.
Indeed, disguising an immodest show of self publicity as the unrequested, unsent and unreceived mark of respect to public health workers, is at best a personal assault on one’s own virtue, and at worst, an excuse not to participate in real or productive action in support of the noble cause.
* * *
In conclusion, it appears there are ongoing moves to button down the dirty shirt collars of civil disobedience, and shift dissidence towards patriotic acts of obedience, such as the recent pot and pan bashing doorstep advocacy for the NHS.
Has this widespread infiltration of activism resulted in the state taking clandestine ownership of the most visible movements, in order to transform activism into instruments that can be used to do the unofficial bidding of a global elite?