Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Free Mason- Know Your Enemy

Free Mason- Know Your Enemy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17 |Likes:
Published by skalpsolo

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: skalpsolo on Jun 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Chris Shaw and Jill McEachernWith recent events in Genoa, the anti-globalization movement has reached a crossroads. To choose which path totake, we must understand what has been revealed from the relatively innocent days of Seattle to the overt fascism of Genoa. Crucially, we must recognize that we are in a war. This is a hard fact for many of us to accept. It goes againstour deepest hopes for a peaceful and rational resolution to the current world crisis. It seems to offer a vision of combat, destruction, and death that violates in advance the world we hope to create. And, frankly, it scares most of us, including those who have known war.The New World Order of global capitalism operates under no such constraints or illusions. It clearly knows that thisis a war for survival of two totally irreconcilable world visions -- "everything is for sale" versus "people and the planet before profits" -- and it is either they or we who will prevail. Their actions reveal this knowledge as their agents in the police and the various armies act with increasing military precision and violence to silence protest. Onehas only to realize that the ramped up violence from Seattle to Quebec City to Genoa has been almost entirely one-sided. At each protest, more police and soldiers come out, armed with increasingly lethal weapons. Further levels of confrontation and aggression, almost all from the State, increase, and the civil rights of ordinary citizens are further diminished. In each case, protesters and those passersby merely unfortunate enough to be present have been gassedand beaten. Demonstrators in Sweden have been shot and in Genoa a man was killed by gunfire. The war we seemafraid to acknowledge is, in fact, a global civil war. For all intents and purposes, the conflict between the New WorldOrder and those who confront it is an early stage of World War III.There is a spectrum of response that can be made to the agenda of the New World Order. First, one may accept ascorrect the basic premise that all the world and all the world's people are mere commodities to be bought and sold bythose with money and power. Such a statement is far too realistic and 'honest' for even its most ardent supporters toacknowledge, at least in public. In its place, many cheerleaders for the New World Order clothe the reality of their agenda in the platitudes of neo-liberalism: "helping the poorer nations catch up", "'free markets' equal democracy andhuman freedom". Statements of this type are the mantras of those who support this world view. The corporate mediaof most countries spin out such statements daily, to the point where many people accept globalization not only as'inevitable', but even desirable.Caught between the underlying reality and the waves of pro-globalization propaganda, many citizens, particularly inthe industrialized countries, choose to remain ignorant, placing their trust in some future happy resolution. After all,the hope goes, humanity has been through worse crises before; it will all work out in the end as it did in the past.Others are apathetic, believing we can't change the system. Many are simply afraid, especially after the repression of  protests in various cities. While these positions are understandably human, they are also philosophically indefensiblegiven that the New World Order's fundamental premise and global actions are innately immoral.Another response to the globalization agenda is to withdraw from the system. The logic of this approach says that wecan make capitalist ideology and institutions irrelevant by replacing them with our own. We let global capitalism doits thing while we do ours: We can opt out of the system, substituting barter for banks and self-sufficient, sustainablecommunities in place of corporation-run societies. A hundred years ago, this strategy might have worked, but nolonger. The forces of the New World Order are everywhere, into everything, and can tolerate no alternative realitiesthat might serve as counter-examples to the future world they frenetically crave. Try to run your own economy as didSerbia and you get Kosovo and invasion; withdraw into your own community and you get Waco; escape to theAmazon and they will clear cut it around you. We share with all humans the foundations for life on Earth: water, air,the very web of life. There is simply no place to hide, and the time left to save humanity and the planet is runningout.Attempts to reform capitalism by restoring national controls and making it responsive to civil society are sometimestouted as solutions, often by those already part of the system. 'Chartered' corporations can work for society if regulated by governments that recognize the primacy of people. Entrepreneurial use of capital can benefit society if under the same regulations. The historical reality is that such controls have been short-lived at best and the currentseries of international trade 'agreements' and organizations seek to wipe out whatever regulations still exist.World history is filled with examples of capitalism seeking total control. Until now, they have never had the
collaboration of most of the world's national governments. Now they do. There is thus no motivation for capitalismto reform itself, with the prize of the whole world within grasp. To draw a medical analogy, attempting to reformcapitalism is like trying to reform cancer. In both cases, the pathology is unlikely to cooperate.If we in the anti-globalization movement accept the premise that the New World Order is a pathological danger tohumanity and the planet, and one that must be combated, we must first define what our long-term goals are.Generally stated, I think most would agree with a mission statement something like, "Our aim is to replace rampantglobal capitalism with a just society and economy that puts the Earth and all of its people before profit". To achievethis goal, we must choose appropriate strategies; within the strategies will be the specific tactics to be employed for this battle.We are left with two remaining options. The most extreme is violent revolution. While many societies are close tothis, we in the West are simply not yet there, neither practically nor emotionally. It may yet come to this everywhereas global capitalism's grip continues to strangle the planet, but that time is not now. Not only are we not ready, butviolent revolution as a means to create a more just world carries within itself its own karmic implications: It will benext to impossible to teach future generations that violence is not an answer if their world has been born in blood.This leaves us with the final current option: education, mass protests, direct action, and civil disobedience. This isvery much what the anti-globalization movement is doing now. The problem lies not with the basic strategy, but withtactics. Up to now, confronting the agencies of globalization at their meetings has had mixed success. We havesucceeded in raising public awareness about the issues surrounding globalization, but we are now locked into a cycleof diminishing returns as non-violent mass protest has reached a predictable conclusion.After Genoa, middle class white people now know what people of the 'Third World', the poor, and people of colour in our own society have known for years: if pushed hard enough, the Corporate State will kill. We may still hope inthe long run to win this war non-violently with love and reason, but it should now be totally clear that withoutforgoing non-violence, we will not breach the barricades erected to protect the elite at their meetings. Unless the anti-globalization movement becomes armed and ready for combat, it will never break into the fortresses. The very bestwe can hope for with a continued strategy of confrontation in the cities are more 'Genoas'.The planned protests at the IMF meetings in Washington DC in September 2001 seem likely to repeat the events inQuebec City and Genoa: more violence by the State, more injury, possibly more death, without protesters cominganywhere near to reaching their goals of either stopping the meetings or influencing their outcomes. Theembarrassment we cause the leaders of the New World Order by showing up has now been countered by a newresponse. Rather than have their agendas compromised by the untidiness of clashes in the cities, the globalizers willensure that future meetings of the G8, IMF, the World Bank and others will be held in increasingly inaccessible places, for example, the desert dictatorship of Qatar, or the mountain stronghold of Kananaskis. Their goal is to makefuture efforts to protest the globalization agenda increasingly difficult. What 'face' they lose by holding their meetings in secret in such lonely places is, for them, a small price to pay. Better to pay this price than allow'anarchists' to expose their schemes; better to have meetings where only the tame press can report, where the violenceof their police can go unmonitored, where those who dare to question their legitimacy can be crushed at will. For them it even becomes an exercise in spin-doctoring. They are already claiming that they are forced to hold their meetings in out of the way places because of the 'violence of mobs of unelected, unrepresentative, professional protesters'.Time has run out on the movement's focus on tactics of mass urban confrontation. By now, the point has been madethat many average citizens of all countries oppose the process of economic globalization. The damage wrought tocities hosting such summits has brought parts of the movement into disrepute, and 'Black Blocs' and other parts of the anti-globalization coalition mutually accuse each other of sabotage and collusion with the State. As false as it is,the corporate media have succeeded in convincing many of our uninvolved fellow citizens that we are all 'violentanarchists', protesting only out of selfishness or a desire for the cheap thrill of street fighting.If more of us are killed, the media will write us off as deserving of such a fate by dint of our 'violence', and anyembarrassment to governments will be transitory. If instead a member of the police dies, regardless at whose hands,we can be equally sure that the press will use this to condemn the entire movement and governments will use such anevent for crocodile tears followed by even greater repression. In fact, the killing of a policeman or soldier would
likely be viewed as a 'win-win' event for them as it would further demonize the movement, further tribalize the police, and further divide the forces opposing the globalization agenda. One wonders that they have not yet uppedthe ante to killing one of their own to achieve just this response. The use of 'agent provocateur' tactics by the State iswell documented against the anti-globalization movement and throughout the history of social uprisings. Thearchitects of the New World Order will mourn neither our deaths nor those of the police if they should occur: We aremerely in their way; the police merely their tools whose deaths may serve a purpose. We need a new tacticalapproach.There are two major war-fighting doctrines now taught by Western armies: attrition and manoeuvre. Attritionwarfare was that which characterized most wars up until the end of World War II. Basically, in this form of war, anarmy fights for space, attacks the enemy at his strong point, and seeks to wear him down by attrition, ultimatelytotally destroying him. The winner of such wars is the side best able to withstand the attrition in lives and material.Our current anti-globalization approach has been mostly that of attrition: They barricade themselves, we besiege;they move to new locations, we follow. The fundamental problems with this approach are that (1) they have all theweapons; (2) they are in defensible positions with the force required to hold them; and (3 ) they are already planningto move to ever more remote fortresses where our ability to follow and effectively confront them will be severelylimited.A rule of thumb for offensive operations says that to succeed, the attacker must outnumber the defender by a ratio of 3:1. As they move farther from major cities for their meetings, this ratio will increase in their favor. Add to this thefact that they will now operate out of sight of all but the controlled media, and we have the recipe for a completefailure of our future goals if we carry on with an attrition approach. However, if we adopt the manoeuvre doctrine,the move to more remote locations becomes irrelevant and it presents the anti-globalization movement withopportunities.Historically, 'manoeuvrist' doctrine has been used successfully by various armies. In brief, the manoeuvre doctrinesays this: Attack the enemy's weakness, do not fight for space, disrupt the enemy's tempo, and destroy his cohesion.Changing the tempo of attacks and hitting where least expected prevents the enemy from responding to anychallenge in time, and saps his morale. In military terms, such tactics "get inside the enemy's decision cycle" andkeep him constantly striving to catch up. In the end, disorganization and demoralization force surrender. In manyways, the manoeuvre approach in war is much like the guiding tactical philosophy of most martial arts that seek todefeat an opponent by attacking weak points, rather than by confronting strength with strength.We can accept that there will always be a place for demonstrations in major urban centres, if for no other reason thanto educate and expand the movement, if only to 'bear witness' to the crimes done in the name of globalization. Wecan, however, also envision future hypothetical scenarios in which the manoeuvre approach could provide addedability to fight back by increasing mobility and flexibility of thinking to our overall strategic plan. Imagine this:***Any resemblance of the following to any current or future events or people is purely coincidental. ***It's the year 2005. The state of the environment and the plight of poor and working class people the world over isdesperate. Successive meetings of the global elite have been met by ever greater numbers of protesters taking to thestreets, despite the danger. The State has turned to face-recognition software and anti-gang legislation to prosecuteanti-globalization groups and assumed "leaders". Increased intimidation and violence is unleashed against dissentersin the lead-up to the meetings, and the demonstrations themselves are pure carnage. After a protest against the IMF,Independent media footage and accounts flash around the Internet, exposing the lie of the official line about the deathof a policeman. It's a PR disaster for the State.Meetings of the international financial and trade bodies are moved away from urban centres, and are held secretly inremote locales. Rather than attempting to follow, anti-globalization groups such as the "Guardians" and "GlobalResistance" move when and where least expected. Supply lines for food, water, air, transport and communication become opportunities for direct action. Organizations that support the meetings become the focus of boycotts andother forms of interference, causing them to reevaluate their participation.The cost of doing business is escalating, but globalization marches on. The Resistance begins to increase the pressure

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->