From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Info: Info on the FED - Rockefeller
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 10:00:32 GMT


In an article dated  Sat Apr  4 18:15:00 1992
cberlet@igc.org says:

<begin quote>

The difference between power structure research and paranoid anti-Jewish
pathology lies in your implication that secret Jewish elites control
world finance. C. Wright Mills and others have written on power and
influence, Hitler, Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton and Lyndon LaRouche
write about Jewish conspiracies and secret manipulation. If we are ever
going to change society it will not be by pathetic paranoid conspiracy
theories, but serious research and persuasive education and organizing.
Theories such as you peddle disempower people and misdirect their attention
from instituional problems to individual conspiracies. You serve the interests
of those you claim to oppose.

Scapegoating and conspiracy theories are building blocks of fascism.

Let's not make the same mistake twice in one century.

Fight government corruption and fascist scapegoating.

-Chip Berlet

<end quote>

I am a little unclear as to the implication of Chip's remarks. He appears 
to oppose research into power and influence within institutions on the
one hand to "individual conspiracies" on the other. It is not clear to 
me how these are to be distinguished. Does Chip suppose that instutions
and institutional relationships arose through some accidental process
of "blind evolution" or will he acknowledge that instutions are created
by individuals to serve, however imperfectly, the goals and purposes
of those individuals. If he will admit this, does he then imagine that
these individuals have constructed the instutional framework of society
in the full light of day, and that the real purposes of institutions 
are those which are publically acknowledged, or will he admit that 
instutions are all too often constructed on a framework of deception
by the activities of those whose real purposes are not those they 
openly avow? If he admits this much, will he further admit that 
individuals perform such instution-building, not merely singly, as 
isolated individuals, but in collaboration with one another, often
unpublicized collaboration? If he will admit this much, if he will
admit that social instutions are created by individuals who
collaborate with one another in ways and for purposes which they do
not make public, then he should have to admit that the study of 
instutional power relationships is precisely the study of 
political, financial, and cultural conspiracies.

If on the contrary he believes that instutions, although comprised
of individuals, operate on "automatic pilot" and are not subject
to intelligent control, let him say so openly and tell us why he 
should believe such an odd thing.

If he will, nonetheless, admit to the existence and potency of
conspiracies, will he then claim them to be irrelevant? Will he
say that the study of the American Presidency is relevant, but a
study of the bloodthirsty lunatic George Bush is not? Will he 
admit that it might be acceptable to study power relationships
between the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, but that one
mus do so without recourse to an understanding of the personal
connections of those who hold power in those instutions? Would he
say that we may criticize policy but neglect the financial, 
ideological and personal interests of those who have deterimned 
those policies? 

As to the "Jewish Conspiracy" angle, let me begin by saying that
it is possible that Don Allen or someone whose analysis he relys
on may be unfairly singling out the Rothschilds. I have not 
studied the history of banking to know myself if the Rothschild
family really has the kind of power to make it legitimately the
centerpiece of such a study, or not. If not, then someone has 
certainly erred by not including in a similarly central role 
other families of similar power and status. And it is possible, 
though certainly not proven, that such an error could have been
motivated by anti-Jewish sentiments. 

That said, suppose for argument's sake that the Rothschilds have
precisely the sort of power and influence alluded to in such 
analyses. (This is a factual question which ought to be subject
to a study of the evidence.) Would it then be illegitimate or
even anti-semitic to say so? Let us go further. The example of
American urban organized crime shows that conspiracies can and
frequently do organize along ethnic lines. If I acknowledge the
existence of the Sicilian Mafia, if I critize them vigorously, 
does that mean that I am or shoud be suspected of being 
anti-Italian? Does that mean I go around muttering words like 
"Wop" or "Dago" and check out the local Italian grocer for 
pistol shaped bulges? I think not. 

Suppose that there may be elements of interntional financial 
power organized along ethnic lines, including Jewish? Could 
one entertain or even accept such a hypothesis without being 
predjudiced against the Jewish people? 

I suggest that if and only if an analysis singles out Jewish
suspects while ignoring or minimizing the role of non-Jews who
are in similar positions, could the analysis properly be suspect
of anti-semitism. It is not racist to note the heavy involvement
of young urban black men in the crack cocaine trade. That 
involvement is empirical fact. It WOULD be racist to ignore
the similar involvement of other race, age and gender groups, or
to assume without evidence that a particular young black male
is certainly or even probably a crack dealer.

Just my $2.00,
Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7738 alt.individualism:2466 talk.politics.misc:18311 misc.legal:9320