PROTEST AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
How
You Can Make A Difference
by George
Paxinos
To all our internet friends out there, who might be
interested in protesting this upcoming war and wonder if their actions can
effect changes in government policy. Please read on, because this is not
quite public knowledge, yet is pertinent to every act of ours and its
resulting effects
Firstly, please do not ever believe that surveillance can be reined in
by democratic process in representative house debate, as autocratic rule
behind the scenes will annul this.
Secondly, DO believe that sufficient protest can cause the immediate
countermanding of that autocratic agenda. OK -- this seems contradictory,
so I will explain it:
This week, Germany and France suddenly decided not to partake of this
unilateral War For Oil.
To outside observers, this appears to be some personal decision of
their leadership, perhaps motivated by conscience, perhaps by strategic
considerations of possible aftermath issues and their cost? NO.
These decisions were motivated by considerations of their internal
civic stability and continuation of status quo of governing process per
se: bear with me! --
When we think of secret intelligence-gathering, we are stereotyped in
our imaginings by spy-novel and Hollywood depictions of such things:
High-security, electronically-guarded high-rises at Langley with
deep-garage underground entrances, British manor-houses and foppish MI6
directors, sexy Russian temptresses and bungling fools like 007, and, for
the former Soviet bloc, soulless underground bunkers in East Germany or
deep under the Kremlin -- AND ALL ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTED OUTWARD, AT THE
ENEMY "OUT THERE". This is not the half of it.
The other part, is that intelligence agencies have to provide VERY good
data on internal civic stability, how much the government can get away
with in the public's eye at any one time in a fluid situation, even in
peacetime.
To this end, entire departments are devoted to analyzing the public
mood, not only through monitoring normal opinion-polls, but checking and
re-checking their accuracy by interviews with and reports by
regularly-paid academics, those from think-tanks being rechecked by
independents of all political persuasions, sometimes in sting operations
where a otherwise-leaning academic believes he is monitoring public mood
in behalf of a government inimical to his own, but is actually aiding an
agent of his own service in order that they get no gussied-up
over-optimistic assessments, but the hardcore FACTS of where their public
stands, regarding them. At least, in truly independently professional
intelligence agencies, this would be the case.
In the real world of political appointments of heads of such posts,
only the good news is mostly presented, never the bad:
This was the case with autocratic dictators like Adolph Hitler, who
finally screamed "Where ARE those Divisions ...!?" -- referring
to lost divisions nobody had the courage to tell him had been lost,
and which he was still counting on in his last days, and also in the case
of the Shah of Iran, which is why the CIA bungled its own prognoses of the
true situation, and also today with an autocratic US Government brooking
no contradictions from experts to their egomaniacal dream of
world-conquest.
These departments check and counter-check, through opinion-polls,
think-tanks and academics believing they are working for both sides,
because they want the TRUTH -- then they go ahead and point-check with
departments monitoring many trends, like sending letters-to-the-editor,
seeing which are published, and what replies they elicit, as a
counter-counter-check to their extrapolations from all other
sources.
Good intelligence agencies then present these best-prognoses, as
flowing trends, the second-derivative velocity vectors of public opinion,
as it were, to the politicians in power.
These domestic prognoses are actually far more important than foreign
ones, as the domestic power-base itself must be established, before
external action can be contemplated.
To put it bluntly, the actions of France and Germany immediately
following the weekend of 18/19 January 2003 were determined by the
demonstrations on that weekend.
Their intelligence services are excellent, and their honesty apparently
great.
To go ahead with war would cause such internal destabilization, that
the status quo of society itself and the linear continuance of government
within historical bounds of acceptably flexible social leeway would be put
gravely in doubt: the aggregate of molecular energy of the gas in the
flask would assume internal momentum enough to burst its containment, and
an entirely new flask would have to be created, that is, the social
structure of accepted government would fall, there would be chaos, much
infrastructure of society and industry would be damaged in rioting, and
the economy perhaps terminally damaged in some areas, and re-establishment
of adequate containment so protracted, that the national economy
terminally damaged by the time re-containment could be achieved.
So France and Germany considered: Go ahead with the US-led war, and
have rebellion and overthrow of government as they know it, major infrastructure
facilities trashed, and indeterminate period of time until
re-establishment of consensus between social divisions, or abstain, and
watch only American interests and businesses wasted across Europe, and
one's own being left intact by ensuing popular unrest?
Notice now why they abstained for the sake of their own people?
The USA in the above respects of rational extrapolation of prognoses,
these facts also pertain.
That they are not externally evident yet, means 1) either that there is
a dishonesty of assembly or of presentation of these rational conclusions,
or else 2) there is a dishonesty in those receiving them, a psychotic
self-assurance that they will prevail against world opinion and that of
their own public, or 3) a dishonesty in both spheres, or else, as a fourth
possibility, 4) such a brutally sociopathic despotic agenda, as implies
they will forcibly suppress their own public's will if need be?
Whatever -- it was the general public's show of unrest that prompted
European policy-making, in the more-democratic Central European theater.
Perhaps Spain and Turkey will go ahead with the war, not having any
particularly bright history of democracy anyway, but in both Italy and
Britain, Berlusconi and Blair will be run out of office if they go ahead,
there will be public burnings, likely lynching, and in Italy
long-suppressed grudges mean perhaps even the Vatican burned to the
ground, and in Britain, No. 10 Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament,
and perhaps even the palaces of the Royals -- we are in for CHANGES,
Friends, and only France and Germany have moved to pre-empt theirs.
***YOUR EVERY PROTEST AND LETTER CAN CAUSE A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT
POLICY***
