Shock Doctrined Through Think Tanks

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
I've been reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, and what I find interesting, is that American Imperialism over the past half century or so, has followed a pattern.

One laid out by the Chicago school and Milton Friedman. And it was done under the guise of fighting Socialism/Communism, but was really about taking over the economics of other nations, for corporate interests.

Chile provides an excellent example of how the system works.

In an attempt to combat the socialist principles of leading Latin American economist Raul Prebisch, the Chicago School offered free market courses at a Chilean university.

This was the brainchild of Albion Patterson, director of the U.S. International Cooperation Administration in Chile, and Theodore W. Schultz, chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago, who called on Friedman to work his magic.

The two men came up with a plan that would eventually turn Santiago, a hotbed of state-centred economics, into its opposite—a laboratory for cutting-edge free-market experiments, giving Milton Friedman what he had longed for: a country in which to test his cherished theories. The original plan was simple: the U.S. government would pay to send Chilean students to study economics at what pretty much everyone recognized was the most rabidly anti-"pink" school in the world—the University of Chicago. Schultz and his colleagues at the university would also be paid to travel to Santiago to conduct research into the Chilean economy and to train students and professors in Chicago School fundamentals. (1)

Friedman and his gang would also bring the media on board, and not surprisingly, the president of their largest newspaper, El Mercurio, would become Augustus Pinochet's economic minister after the U.S. led coup.

However, another important step in trying to turn the Southern Cone , and indeed the rest of the free world, to the right, came from another faculty member at the Chicago School, Friedrich von Hayek.

Hayek had come up with the notion of the corporate funded free market think tank, that he suggested should "present themselves as civil society". They churn out report after report, poll after poll, all to promote corporate interests.

And Chile was no exception. The most prominent are Libertad y Desarrollo (now the Latin American institute) and Centro de Estudios Públicos , both heralded as the saviour of Chile (next to Milton Friedman, bombs, guns and assassins).

Alejandro Chafuen wrote a piece in April of 2010: Think Tanks and the Transformation of the Chilean Economy

In it he not only praises Libertad y Desarrollo and Centro de Estudios Públicos , but also Canada's own Fraser Institute.

... the Fraser Institute in Canada, ranked today as the best market oriented institute outside the United States. Fraser has a huge influence in a Canada which is overcoming the US in economic freedoms, transparency, and several other areas.

But who is this Alejandro Chafuen?

He is the past President of the Atlas Foundation and a Senior Fellow at the Acton Institute. In fact the Acton Institute was started with funds provided by the Atlas Foundation, and is an extension of the Religious Right.

Atlas was, and is, a major sponsor of the Acton Institute run by former faith healer, evangelical, gay community organizer, and now Catholic priest, Bob Sirico. Sirico ran fundamentalist faith healing meetings until he came out as gay. Then he moved on to the Metropolitan Community Churches and started running the Gay Community Center in Hollywood ... Acton officials got heavily involved in the debate on gay marriage. With Sirico back in the closet (though some conservatives don’t think so) the position they have been taking has been to pander to bigots on the Religious Right.

The Atlas Foundation also helps to finance the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which was started in 2002, by Conservative MP John Weston. The CCF has ties to the Harper government and Canada's Neoconservative movement.

They were also behind attack ads run in the U.S. to oppose Obama's healthcare plan.

Donald Gutstein wrote an excellent book: Not a Conspiracy Theory, in which he exposes the myriad of think tanks and foundations propping up the Harper government. Gutstein tells us to follow the money, and the few connections I provided above, are only a tip of the iceberg.

If we are going to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, it's important to know what we're up against. The media is constantly quoting polls and reports from these groups, to defend or explain this government's policies.

We have to do what Gutstein suggests and follow the money. Google the name of the group or the person quoted. It won't take long to find they belong to some corporate funded think tank or "advocacy" group, many with planted MPs.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (Jason Kenney)
The Fraser Institute (Jason Kenney, Rob Anders)
The Montreal Institute (Maxime Bernier)
The Civitas Society (Jason Kenney)
The National Citizens Coalition (Stephen Harper and Rob Anders)

The list is endless.

Once you trace the origin, email the columnist or own the comments section. Our best weapon is education, including the education of the media. Maybe if we become enough of a pain, they may start providing some balance.

Brigette DePape started something here, putting her job on the line to make a statement. But its not enough to simply "stop" Stephen Harper. We must fight against the entire movement, before it destroys us.

Sources:

1. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8

Redefining Populism as Fraser Institute Drafts Policy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

On August 23, 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (1) Outlining the need for a business-financed propaganda infrastructure, he stated:

"Success in defending capitalism lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations”. Over time, this machine would hobble activist governments, undo the social and economic advances of the 1950s and '60s, and put business back in the driver's seat, Powell predicted. (2)

Two months later, President Richard Nixon, endorsed his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration's "hands-off business" philosophy. (1)

The memo would also make news north of the border. The corporate sector in British Columbia became alarmed when an NDP government was elected in 1972, and sprang into action:

In the fall of 1973, Michael Walker was working for the federal finance department when he got a call from an old college friend, Csaba Hajdu. Hajdu's boss, MacMillan Bloedel's T. Patrick Boyle, and other business executives in B.C. were greatly agitated by the NDP government of Dave Barrett and wanted advice on how to bring about its demise. In the spring, Walker met with Boyle, who twenty-three years later is still a Fraser Institute trustee. While a think-tank was not an ideal way to deal with the immediate problem of getting rid of the NDP government, Boyle and his mining-executive friends were apparently willing to take the long view. Walker's pitch was good enough to persuade fifteen of them to hand over a total of $200,000 to get the project started." It was the seed money for the Fraser Institute. (3)

And according to Trevor Harrison:

The Fraser Institute was founded in British Columbia in November 1974 by Michael Walker, the son of a Newfoundland miner. Walker, holder of a doctorate in economics from the University of Western Ontario, started the institute with the monetary support of BC's business community, which was still reeling from the NDP's election in 1972. By 1984 the institute was operating on an annual budget of $900,000, funded by some of Canada's largest business interests, including Sam Belzberg of First City Trust, Sonja Bata of Bata Limited, A.J. de Grandpre of Bell Canada, and Lorne Lodge of IBM Canada.

The Fraser Institute also boasts impressive conservative credentials. The institute's authors include Milton Friedman [Ronald Reagan's economic adviser] and Herbert Grubel, while its editorial board includes Sir Alan Walters, former personal economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Finally, William F. Buckley Jr, brother-in-law of BC Socred bagman Austin Taylor, is a favourite guest speaker of the institute. In short, the Fraser Institute is a conservative think-tank heavily funded by the corporate sector. (4)

Canada's neoconservative movement had it's first "think-tank", though certainly not it's last. And it wouldn't be long before they would start moving into government circles:

By 1975, B.C.'s right-wing had once more coalesced, this time under W.A.C. Bennett's forty-four-year-old son, Bill Bennett. Barrett's NDP was defeated by the Socreds. (5)

They stayed in power for several years with the help of the corporate funded Fraser Institute:

As Socred fortunes began to wane, Bennett's political advisers decided upon a marketing strategy that would present Bill Bennett as the 'tough guy' who would straighten out BC's economic problems. The result was his announcement in 1982 of a curb on public sector wages and a freeze on government spending. The economy, however, continued to crumble.

An election was set for 5 May 1983, during which Bennett promised that, if elected, he would continue the policies of moderate restraint practised in 1982. On election night, Bennett's Social Credit party took thirty-five seats (49.8 per cent of the vote) to the NDP'S twenty-two seats (44.9 per cent of the vote).

Before the opening of the new legislature, the Socred cabinet was advised by the Fraser Institute's Michael Walker of the policies it should take to turn the economy around. Guided by Walker's advice, the Socreds set about making British Columbia the 'testing ground for neoconservative ideology.'

On 7 July 1983, Bennett's government introduced both a budget and an astonishing twenty-six bills. Among other things, the bills removed government employees' rights to negotiate job security, promotion, job reclassification, transfer, hours of work and other working conditions; enabled public sector employers to fire employees without cause; extended public sector wage controls; repealed the Human Rights Code; abolished the Human Rights Branch and Commission, the Rentalsman's Office, and rent controls; enabled doctors to opt out of medicare; removed the right of school boards to levy certain taxes; and dissolved the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission."' (5)

They were on a roll, and would continue their mission, guiding both Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, through their steamrolling of social services, and promotion of the corporate sector. Stephen Harper would also seek out the Fraser when he was helping to create the Reform Party, and they continue to guide his policy.

Related:

Redefining Populism: Think Tanks, Foundations and Institutes, Oh My!

Fraser Institute Paper Reveals That Stephen Harper is Not a Conservative

The Fraser Institutes's Role

The Fraser Institute: From Chickens to Iron Ladies

The Fraser Institute, Roger Douglas and Revisionist History

National Citizens Coalition and Other Right-Wing Groups Help Mike Harris

Stockwell Day: Flat Head, Flat Tax, Flat Out Wrong

How to Create a Business-Financed Propaganda Infrastructure

Sources:

1. The Powell Memo: (also known as the Powell Manifesto), Reclaim Democracy, April 3, 2004

2. Harperstein, By Donald Gutstein, Straight.com, July 6, 2006

3. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 48-49

5. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 51-53

Redefining Populism: Think Tanks, Foundations and Institutes, Oh My!

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The Tea Party in the United States is being called a grassroots movement. The voices of the people.

But like the Reform movement, this is just another vehicle for the corporate world, who risked losing their scheduled "Bush tax cuts".

So working through the Republican Party, they have managed to shift the United States even further to the right. To a spot just right of sanity.

But while the Tea Party may be steeped in Orange Pekoe, those funding and benefiting from the clinking teaspoons, prefer champagne and caviar.

According to Linda McQuaig:

Back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan launched his campaign for a right-wing revolution in America, David Koch was a disgruntled billionaire who thought Reagan wasn’t far enough to the right. Today, Koch is still a disgruntled billionaire and still convinced the Reagan revolution hasn’t gone nearly far enough in cutting taxes on the rich, dismantling the welfare state and gutting government controls on business.

But today, as Americans vote in their mid-term elections, Koch is no longer in the political wilderness. After pumping more than $100 million into arch-conservative political organizations over the past 30 years, he (and billionaire brother Charles) now appear close to pushing U.S. politics significantly further to the right — even though the wealthy elite is already richer and more powerful today than it’s been since the 1920s. Through their Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Koch brothers have micromanaged the rise of the purportedly grassroots Tea Party movement. (1)

And that's not all the Koch brothers have been behind. When an organization founded by one of Harper's MPs, John Weston, and former Stockwell Day supporter, John Carpay, launched attack ads in the US against Obama's healthcare plan, the Koch Foundation, through their Americans for Prosperity, helped to pay the bills. You can read all about it here.

These so-called grassroots movements have been called astroturf, but fake or not, the Tea Party is here to stay.

And using foundations to fund these movements is clever, because it means that while they warble against "taxes" the donations these foundations contribute is tax deductible, so those warbling taxpayers are funding their own demise.

We have the same thing in Canada. The Griffith Foundation for starters, donated $ 100,000.00 tax deductible dollars to the Fraser Institute. (2) The same Fraser Institute that helped to launch the Reform party. Jason Kenney and Rob Anders are both alumni.

And when Stephen Harper came to power he immediately changed the rules to make it even easier for these groups to benefit from our tax dollars.

Just a year after the Fraser's anniversary, Harper was prime minister and it was payback time. Buried in his first budget was a provision to exempt from capital gains tax donations of stock to charity. Adding this new exemption to the existing tax credit for donations to charities means that the donor pays only 40 percent of the dollars he donates. Taxpayers pick up the rest. (3)

In his book Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, Trevor Harrison speaks of the assorted think-tanks that helped to advance neoconservatism in Canada. When we were still allowed to call it neoconservatism.

The Fraser Institute was founded in British Columbia in November 1974 by Michael Walker, the son of a Newfoundland miner. Walker, holder of a doctorate in economics from the University of Western Ontario, started the institute with the monetary support of BC's business community, which was still reeling from the NDP's election in 1972. By 1984 the institute was operating on an annual budget of $900,000, funded by some of Canada's largest business interests, including Sam Belzberg of First City Trust, Sonja Bata of Bata Limited, A.J. de Grandpre of Bell Canada, and Lorne Lodge of IBM Canada.

The Fraser Institute also boasts impressive conservative credentials. The institute's authors include Milton Friedman [Ronald Reagan's economic adviser] and Herbert Grubel, while its editorial board includes Sir Alan Walters, former personal economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Finally, William F. Buckley Jr, brother-in-law of BC Socred bagman Austin Taylor, is a favourite guest speaker of the institute.

In short, the Fraser Institute is a conservative think-tank heavily funded by the corporate sector. Like the National Citizens' Coalition [Stephen Harper was president of the NCC when he left to run for leadership of the Alliance Party] , the Fraser Institute has steadfastly used its position to advance the neo-conservative agenda, an agenda liberally sprinkled with such Reaganite buzzwords as fiscal restraint, downsizing, and privatization. (4)

We are funding our own demise.

And these "think-tank" "astroturf" groups are growing. Dennis Gruending revealed several new ones, all with ties to Stephen Harper.

· the Manning Centre, created by Preston and his wife Sandra to train people how to succeed at conservative politics;

· the Ottawa-based Institute for Canadian Values, which has as its executive director Joseph Ben-Ami, a former political organizer for Stockwell Day.; and

· the Ottawa-based Institute for Marriage and Family, created by Dr James Dobson’s powerful US Focus on the Family (Canada), to provide socially conservative research and advice.

. the Hamilton-based Work Research Foundation (WRF), vice-president of research, Ray Pennings, was an unsuccessful Canadian Alliance candidate in the
2000 federal election.

The emergence of all these organizations might indicate that Canada is now seen as fertile territory for the think tank industry. If so, we all (and unions especially) should brace for an onslaught of “free market” propaganda. The challenge for progressive groups is provide better information and to distribute it widely within the community. (5)

And then there's the Frontier Centre, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Montreal Economic Institute (Maxime Bernier), the Civitas Society, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The list is endless.

Yes Folks. We are funding our own demise.

Sources:

1. Fortunes fertilize grassroots, By Linda McQuaig, Toronto Star, November 2, 2010

2. Behind Closed Doors: How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System, By Linda McQuaig, Viking Press, 1987, ISBN: 0-670-81578-7, Pg. 57

3. Harperstein, Straight.com, By Donald Gutstein, July 6, 2006

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 48-49

5. Conservative think tanks multiply in Canada, By Dennis Gruending, Pulpit and Politics, November 10, 2007

Fraser Institute Paper Reveals That Stephen Harper is Not a Conservative

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Throughout history there are a great many myths, and of course those myths then become facts and those facts become history. But for our time, one of the biggest myths is the labelling of Stephen Harper as a Tory, and his party as conservatives.

Anyone who has ever voted Progressive Conservative in the past, must know in their gut that this party is absolutely nothing like the Progressive Conservative Party that we are familiar with.

Can you imagine the wonderful Dalton Camp, former conservative strategist, ever working with someone like Stephen Harper? When he first learned that there was a movement to unite the Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party) with his conservatives, he was adamantly opposed, suggesting that the two parties had no common ground and that then leader of the Alliance Party, Stockwell Day, was "viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe." (1)

Lawrence Martin recently asked: Is there an old-style Tory in the House?

Is there a moderate Tory left in this land? There are many, of course. It’s just that they have no voice. They might as well be in cement shoes at the bottom of Lake Nipigon. This year, in particular, it has become evident just how much the old Tories of Robert Stanfield and Dalton Camp and Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark have been vanquished.

During their first years of governance, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives paid heed to the views of that progressive breed. But the party’s hard right now appears, with a few policy exceptions, to have assumed control of the agenda. And that agenda is about keeping out boat people, letting in Fox News, building new jails, reviewing affirmative action, killing the gun registry, playing down climate change, revamping the census and giving more voice to social conservatives.

However, I came across a decade old article published for the Fraser Institute, that lays it all out succinctly. Written by Laurence Putnam, it was entitled: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.

I was a bit confused at first, because the Fraser Institute, with people like Jason Kenney, David Frum and Ezra Levant, worked very hard to unite these parties, and yet clearly this report detailed why such a union was wrong.

This analysis has been prepared in answer to pleas from various political personalities in Canada to unite the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. It is the goal of this paper to illustrate, with evidence of past elections, voter migration patterns, an examination of each party's culture and historical evidence to prove that any such unity between these two parties would alienate the moderate support base the Progressive Conservative Party enjoys and which must be captured to form a government.

It is the intention of this paper to successfully show how the Reform Party rose to prominence ... and how the Conservatives can work to ensure that movements such as the Canadian Alliance are not allowed to grow in the future.

What Putnam showed was that this would not be about "uniting the right", because the PC Party was not a right-wing party. I had mentioned this before, that in most ways there was little difference between the Liberals and PCs on policy, so elections were always about platform and personality. But the divide between the Reform/Alliance and the PC was a veritable chasm.

And they knew that.

So why did they do it, and why was it so successful?

I remember years ago reading an article in a May, 1939 issue of Liberty Magazine: Why Germany Will Not Go to War. In it the columnist laid out all the reasons why Adolf Hitler would not declare war in Europe. And what I found interesting was that everything predicted came true, and they lost as a result. And that's becasue what wasn't factored into the prediction was profiteering.

A lot of people stood to become very rich off that war, and they in fact did, including many American corporations. (George Bush's grandfather made his fortune financing the Nazis)

And this union of the right, as erroneously as it was labelled, was poised to make a lot of wealthy people wealthier. That's what neoconservatism is all about. And it's why they plucked Stephen Harper from the National Citizens Coalition, a group financed and run by multi-national corporations.

Stephen Harper himself has said that he got back into politics because he felt that the NCC no longer had any allies in government, with Brian Mulroney gone. And the NCC held his job open for four years, before naming another president. He was now working for them on the inside.

I'm going to break down Putnam's paper into several posts, because there are many startling revelations. I then intend to edit it down for a chapter in my E-Book, but for now the important thing is that Stephen Harper and his people deliberately perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people, when they engineered a hostile takeover of the PC Party.

It puts so many past quotes and stories into perspective.

What was revealed to the Fraser Institute was that there were no grounds for a union. So instead they changed their strategy. And for that they went to Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School and founding member of both the Reform Party and Civitas Society, Ted Byfield.

Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School’s professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. “All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them,” Byfield says. “I don’t think he knows how to compromise. It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?” (2)

I guess "you can fool some of the people some of the time", but who are they really fooling now? Harper's base has been reduced to those who know and relish the fact that he is not a Tory.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 381

2. The Man Behind Stephen Harper, by Marci McDonald, From the October 2004 issue of The Walrus

Jason Kenney Finds His Calling Through Incarnation

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The only good thing that we owe to Plato and Aristotle is that they brought forward many arguments which we can use against the heretics. Yet they and other philosophers are now in hell." Girolamo Savonarola, Italian Dominican friar (1452 - 1498)

When Reform Party MP Rob Ringma suggested that business owners should be allowed to demand that gays and ethnics move to the back of the store, if it meant that they could lose business otherwise; Canadians were appalled.

At about the same time, Reform MP Dave Chatters suggested that schools should be allowed to fire gay teachers, there was more public outcry. But when Reform MP Art Hangar planned a trip to Singapore to investigate 'caning' as a form of youth punishment, enough was enough.

One of the few moderates in the party, Jan Brown, publicly spoke out against the rampant racism of the 'God squad' and the fact that Preston Manning refused to put an end to it.

What was telling was that when Ringma attended the next caucus meeting, he repeated his comment and received a standing ovation, and while Manning was under pressure to temporarily suspend him, he also suspended Brown. Instead, she quit. (1)

For the 1997 election a young man was plucked from the Fraser Institute to run under the Reform Party banner for her seat in Calgary Southeast. This would be the beginning of the political career of Jason Kenney.

Kenney had already earned a reputation as a defender of ancient religious tradition, and the Edmonton Journal suggested that Kenney had "finally found his pulpit" (2), and the Alberta Report would later refer to him as the "new Savonarola." (3)

Jason Kenney and the Incarnation of Girolamo Savonarola

"It would be good for religion if many books that seem useful were destroyed. When there were not so many books and not so many arguments and disputes, religion grew more quickly than it has since." Girolama Savonarola

Comparing Jason Kenney to Savonarola was an astute observation. The fifteenth century friar was a fierce defender of ancient tradition, and staunchly opposed relativism, much like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who influenced the teaching at St. Ignatius in San Fransicso when Jason Kenney was a student.

Savonarola was known for his book burning, destruction of what he considered immoral art, and hostility to the Renaissance. Hostility to change. He would later be executed, but even today has many followers, who would prefer that religious teaching would stick to a perceived "truth" and not be open to interpretation or debate. The infallibility of the Bible.

This was the climate at St. Ignatius in San Francisco when Jason Kenney was studying "humanities". In fact the school was started in protest to the Second Vatican Council, which was an attempt to modernize the church's teachings, to adapt to a changing world.

When the new president, Rev. Stephen Privett, took over the Jesuit-run school in 2001, he dismissed the two directors of the institute, and began to clean up some of the radical teachings, that were creating so much controversy.

"Since its founding 25 years ago, the institute has functioned as an enclave of strict orthodoxy at the relatively liberal university [of San Francisco] ... Privett accused Fessio and other institute lobbyists of "McCarthyite" tactics." (4)

It was also referred to as a "cult". They were militantly anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. In fact according to the Western Catholic Reporter, Jason Kenney, "... as a university student leader made headlines in California trying to ban abortion groups from the university and fighting against gay rights in San Francisco." (5)

It was probably because of incidents like this that the University of San Francisco began looking at the teachings of the separate St. Ignatius, operating on their campus. Hence the arrival of Privett. But the orthodox Catholic students, were not going down without a fight:

Conservative Catholics upset over a bitter shake-up at the University of San Francisco say they may soon have the pope on their side. The Rev. Joseph Fessio, founder of the conservative St. Ignatius Institute, said he has met in Rome with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's chief guardian of orthodoxy, and his concerns have been passed on to Pope John Paul II.

"The Holy Father is aware of what has happened and is watching closely," Fessio said. (4)

However Privett said he "... checked with his Jesuit superiors and found no indications that Rome has intervened in the bitter theological dispute" and Fessio was exiled by the church.(6)

To go to such lengths, Rome and the Jesuit hierarchy must have discovered disturbing evidence. But it does give us some insight in Kenney's narrow minded thinking. It may have been an indoctrination, because he is not a man who challenges himself, and allows no challenges to his thinking.

St. Ignatius during his time not only fought new ideas, but fought the clergy who promoted new ideas. When Kenney went against Pope Paul's denouncing of the Iraq War, he said that:

"... the determination of whether a particular war is just lies exclusively with the responsible public authority, not priests or bishops. In this case "the responsible public authority would be President Bush and me ..."

"So I take issue with those bishops who made what sounded like magisterial pronouncements about the legitimacy of that conflict," Kenney said in response to a question. "They did not have the authority to make such a declaration. They can offer an opinion which I would take very seriously but ultimately I am called upon by the Church itself as a responsible public authority to make a credential decision." (5)

Jason Kenney's Catholic beliefs even trump the Pope. Religious arrogance at it's most profound. One might argue that he was challenging religious doctrine, but he was clearly on the wrong side of the debate.

Next: Jason Kenney Broadens the Tent

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2

2. Jason Kenney Has Found His Pulpit, By Lawrence Martin, Edmonton Journal, March 11, 1999

3. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, Pg. 47

4. Pope's Help Sought in Theology Clash at USF: School protests over orthodox institute, By Don Lattin, Elizabeth Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers, March 28, 2001

5. Promote human dignity - Kenney: Politician says faith and politics do mix, By Ramon Gonzalezwcr, Wetern Catholic Reporter, June 3, 2003

6. Fessio Exiled: Jesuits Shun Invitation to Support New College, By Christopher Zehnder, San Francisco Faith, May 2002

David Frum and the Winds of Change

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In May of 1996, one of Conrad Black's hand picked right-wing journalists, and close friend, David Frum*; held a Winds of Change conference in Calgary, with the purpose of getting together Jean Charest, then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and Preston Manning, then leader of Reform.

The goal, according to Frum, was to discuss the prospects for a merger between the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties. He believed that a vigorous airing of views behind closed doors, would help to develop a common agenda, and create the momentum that was needed to unite the right.

The conference turned out to be both more and less than expected. In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway. The conference did endorse a move that had been underway for some time to field a single Reform-Progressive Conservative candidate in the federal riding of Brant. But the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. The conference also revealed deep divisions between so-called fiscal conservatives who wanted a smaller role for the state and a climate that would foster business growth and social conservatives who wanted greater state involvement in legislating morality whether on abortion, criminal justice, or "family" values. (1)

Ernest Manning had attempted such a merger three decades before, but the neoconservative movement now had the media, controlled by Conrad Black; the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition.

The Winds of Change conference occurred at a time of both political crisis and rising influence for the right in Canada. On one hand, the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties continue to battle each other for supremacy on the right, splintering the vote. The conference did little if anything to alleviate the problem. On the other hand, the entire agenda of Canadian politics has been influenced by an intellectual climate that is shaped more and more by right-wing journalism. (1)

David Frum would go on to become a speech writer for George W. Bush and it was he who coined the phrase "axis of evil." He is still very heavily involved with Stephen Harper and the Reform-Alliance-Conservative movement, especially when it comes to foreign policy, promoting a nuclear attack on the Muslim world.

Next: Craig Chandler and the Roots of Change

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

Media Manipulation: Conrad Black and the POWER of the Press

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Lawrence Martin has written several articles about the Canadian media's rightward migration. In a January 2003 column headlined 'It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media', he quoted an unnamed European diplomat saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values." Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle", the diplomat continued. "There is a disconnect."

Martin believes the disconnect began when Conrad Black converted the Financial Post into the National Post, hired a stable of conservative commentators like Mark Steyn, David Frum and George Jonas, bought the centrist Southam chain and turned the entire package into a vehicle to unite Canada's right and retool the country's values to U.S.-style conservatism. (1)

Conrad Black was definitely a media mogul, but his real claim to fame was as a power broker. A political power broker, who was instrumental in the success of the American style neoconservative movement that brought Stephen Harper to power.

Black was more effective as a conservative political advocate than a businessman. "Yet Conrad Black's business ambitions probably always ran second to his urge to be an intellectual force of conservatism. He did not want to simply own newspapers. He wanted to use them to help to reshape the political culture of his native Canada, and to influence that of the United States, Britain and Israel ..." (2)

From Brian Mulroney and Preston Manning, to Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. Conrad Black was there.

Connie and Brian

Conrad Black and Brian Mulroney had been friends for a number of years. Mulroney was president of the Canadian Iron and Ore Company, when the Black family were major shareholders, and he was the one who first introduced Black to Power Corporation's Paul Desmarais. (3) Black backed Mulroney during his failed 1976 leadership bid, and the Mulroneys remained members of Black's social circle. That circle also included Murray and Barbara Frum(4), parents of David Frum, and while Mulroney and Black had a parting of the ways, Frum remains a Black supporter.

Connie and Preston

"I don't know about Preston [Manning], Preston went to a Bilderberg [summit] meeting. Rides in a limo with Conrad Black. [He's] hobnobbing with the New World Order." James Keegstra (5)

Ernest Manning had enjoyed corporate support when premier of Alberta, and while the Reform Party was supposed to be grassroots, it was very much a party of the corporate sector. So when the Reform Party decided to expand into Ontario, Manning went on a road trip and was introduced to the the king of the power brokers, Conrad Black.

[He spoke during a reception] at Toronto's prestigious Toronto Club hosted by Conrad Black and Hal Jackman. Afterwards, Black not only gave a favourable review of Manning's economic policies, but also contributed $5000 through one of his companies, Sterling Newspapers .

[Cliff] Fryers announced in June 1991 that the party would soon be embarking on a major corporate drive for funding. 'Corporations are part of our constituency,' said Fryers, a remark echoed several months later by Gordon Wusyk, Reform's chief executive in Edmonton: 'What we have to offer corporate Canada is significant." Based in part on the anticipated success of the campaign, the party raised upwards of $20 million ... Manning kicked off the campaign for corporate funds the following month with another trip to Bay Street. While there, he gave a talk to 450 members of the Financial Services Institute, an organization described by journalist Norm Ovenden as 'an elite organization made up of bank, trust company and insurance executives, top corporate lawyers, accountants, stock brokers and pension-fund managers.' (6)

Connie and Stockwell

After the merger of the Reform and Alliance parties, the leadership was up for grabs. And while both Stephen Harper and Conrad Black originally supported Mike Harris operative Tom Long's bid, Black did use a lot of his money and influence to help Stockwell Day, in his run for prime minister, in 2000.

He traipsed him around to $1,000.00 a plate fundraisers and allowed Ezra Levant to host additional fundraising parties at his house.

But after losing the election, and control of his caucus, Black looked to another hopeful. The president of the National Citizens Coalition, an extension of the corporate world.

Connie and Stephen

The decidedly conservative Conrad Black had taken over the liberal Southam chain of newspapers in May of 1996, and soon replaced soft liberal editors with editors of a more conservative cast at several of his publications, such as the Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen. He now controlled 58 of Canada's 105 daily news papers, and he soon made good on his statement to the Globe and Mail "We're going to try and recruit the very best people we can and produce the best papers we can, and publish them to the highest standards we can. And that means separating news from comment, assuring a reasonable variety of comment, and not just the overwhelming avalanche soft, left, bland, envious pap, which has poured like sludge through centre pages of most of the Southam papers for some time." Black folllowed that up by founding the National Post in the fall of 1998, and the Post would provide [Stephen] Harper with an always available platform for airing his views. The Sun Media Newspapers were also receptive, especially Calgary Sun, founded in 1980. (7)

Conrad Black was also heavily invested in the Fraser Institute, a pseudo-think tank, that gave us Jason Kenney and Rob Anders, and has contributed to the neoconservative success story.

When Harper decided to run for the leadership of the merged Alliance-PC party, it is rumoured that it was Black who paid off Peter MacKay's half million dollars worth of loans, if he agreed not to challenge him. (Harper claims to know who put up the money and that it was all above board, and yet still refuses to name the source. (8))

And not long after winning the Alliance leadership in 2003, Black took Harper to Bildeberg, a treat he once bestowed on Manning.

It's a dangerous thing when a powerful media outlet influences elections, whether they be leadership bids or a run for office. It further threatens our democracy, because they represent only the elite of society, and their goal is to destroy our social safety net.

And Stephen Harper has rewarded Black's world in spades, while promising to destroy the rest of us in the name of austerity.

We need to start fighting back, and we can do that by promoting the few independent news sources still available. it will be a long hard climb, but if we don't take that important first step, we are going to be in serious trouble.

Black's empire may be crumbling, but Rupert Murdoch is waiting in the wings, threatening to put the final nail in our coffin.

Previous:

Media Manipulation: Setting Agendas and Shielding Your Bum

Media Manipulation: Journalists or Playwrights?

Sources:

1. Right-wing media covering up political scandal, By Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press December 12, 2007

2. "The Guardian profile: Barbara Amiel", The Guardian, September 3, 2004.

3. The Establishment Man: A Portrait of Power, By Peter C. Newman, McClelland and Stewart, 1982, ISBN: 0-7710-6786-0, Pg. 224

4. Newman, 1982, Pg. 267

5. Bentley, Alberta: Hellfire, Neo-Nazis and Stockwell Day: A two-part look inside the little town that nurtured a would-be prime minister - and some of the most notorious hate-mongers in Canada, By Gordon Laird, NOW Magazine, 2000

6. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3, Pg. 195

7. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 262

8. MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper: No conflict, party leader says, by Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited , Thursday, May 13, 2004

The Fraser Institute's Role

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The Fraser Institute is another formerly obscure group whose rise to prominence coincided nicely with the advent of Canada's neo-conservative politicians, and it has been front and centre of the far right's fight to rethink Canadians' political values and beliefs.... the Institute was set up in the same fashion as several other right-wing groups in the United States, employing a core group of researchers and also engaging like-minded neo-conservative academics from other countries to conduct specific studies.

"To further heighten the international and academic cachet of its work, a second board was set up and given prominence in institute literature, deliberately overshadowing the real power and corporate funds behind the organization. While the Board of Trustees represents a Who's Who of the business elite in Canada, it is almost never referred to; instead, the board of advisers has successfully been established as the academic window dressing. (1)

Friedrich Von Hayek, who is thought to be the pioneer of the libertarian movement, originated the idea of setting up fake scholarly organizations to supply authoritative studies demonstrating the superiority of markets over governments in solving all our problems. Why fake, asks Don Gutenstein. "Because a genuine academic organization would not start with a conclusion and then look for arguments and evidence to support it." (2)

The Fraser Institute was founded in 1974 by Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario and businessman T. Patrick Boyle, then a Vice President of MacMillan Bloedel. Most of the original financing came from the forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, who commissioned Walker to attack the NDP government of British Columbia, under then Premier Dave Barrett.

The Fraser has since worked continuously to forge greater ties with the United States, and began;

"... setting up a Centre for Canadian-American Relations to promote greater economic integration of the two countries. Harper has often voiced his support for deeper integration. It's another strategy for reducing the role of government."

"The Fraser has churned out books hyping hemispheric integration for 15 years. These studies make the point that Canadian prosperity is a result of trade with the U.S. and the free-trade agreements. If we want more prosperity, we need more integration. A 1996 publication, Money and Markets in the Americas: New Challenges, for instance, advocated a monetary union. Michael Wilson--Bay Street broker, Brian Mulroney's minister of finance, and Harper's ambassador to the U.S.--contributed a chapter." (2)

When Stephen Harper was helping Preston Manning to create the Reform Party, he visited the Fraser Institute to make sure they were still on board with creating a neoconservative alternative to the current conservative government, and they did not disappoint. In fact many of Harper's MPs were plucked from the Fraser, including Jason Kenney and Rob Anders.

The Fraser also had strong ties with Conrad Black, the man who helped to finance and create Canada's sharp right turn.

Former members of the board of trustees include David Asper, whose family owns CanWest Global, Canada's largest media corporation; Barbara Amiel, wife of Conrad Black; and David Radler, Black's former business partner. (3)

In 2004, Stephen Harper attended the Fraser Institutes 30th anniversary, and payed tribute to the organization that had played such an integral role in the success of the neoconservative movement:

The scene was the glitzy Imperial Ballroom of Calgary's Hyatt Regency, where 1,200 adoring libertarians, conservatives, and reactionaries paid $300 each to hear four prominent conservative politicians--Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Preston Manning, and Harper--pay tribute to the Fraser's success in pushing political thought in Canada to the right, helping make their careers possible. (2)

Next: Conrad Black's Role - Media Manipulation

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg 420-421

2. Harperstein, By Donald Gutstein, Straight Goods, July 6, 2006

3. Wikipedia

The Fraser Institute: From Chickens to Iron Ladies

The Fraser Institute was founded in 1974 in British Columbia, to provide alternative policy to what some feared was an attempt to turn Canada into a socialist country.

In it's early days it supported the British Columbia Social Credit Party of William Bennet, and it's founder Michael Walker, even spoke to the Premier's cabinet.

Early influences were Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan's economic advisor, and famed free marketeer, Friedrich Hayek.

Hayek, who became a Fraser Institute adviser, originated the idea of setting up fake scholarly organizations to supply authoritative studies demonstrating the superiority of markets over governments in solving all our problems. Why fake? Because a genuine academic organization would not start with a conclusion and then look for arguments and evidence to support it. (1)

When Walker was first establishing the Fraser, he also got direction from the British; Institute for Economic Affairs, where Margaret Thatcher would later snatch two of her advisers; Alan Waters and Ralph Harris. (2)

The IEA was founded by Antony Fisher, a man who made a fortune after introducing factory chicken farming to Britain. He had read a summary Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and became hooked on free market economy.

Thatcher was also greatly inspired by Hayek, and governed primarily from his theories. The think tank that Hayek suggested Fisher create, became a great propaganda vehicle for her policies.

The concept of these think tanks is brilliant. They register as a charity, entitling them to endowments, and tax free fundraising; yet they serve as a propaganda arm for party politics.

The late author, Pierre Berton, had denounced the institute as reflective of right-wing bias and Mel Hurtig said the Fraser Institute only published reports that espouse its right-wing view of the world. "I never have in the past, nor do I expect to in the future, ever pay serious attention to anything published by the Fraser Institute." (3)

And an article in The Province magazine, seems to support past ties to Social Credit:

The organizations which support the Fraser Institute ... appear to be dominating B.C. politics through their use of the institute as a propaganda and government lobby instrument, says a report released by the Solidarity Coalition.... "Virtually the entire range of big forestry based capital in B.C. has membership linkages of a direct or indirect type with the Fraser Institute.... For the large corporations, sponsorship of the Fraser Institute produces a variety of benefits, both immediate and longer-term. In many instances, there is a direct connection between the policies of the institute and the interests of corporations."

The report concludes that the provincial government "has leaned heavily on the Fraser Institute to provide an ideological rationalization" for its recent program-chopping legislation. (4)

When the Reform Party was being created, Stephen Harper paid a visit to the Fraser, and his relationship with them has been mutually beneficial.

Just a year after the Fraser's anniversary, Harper was prime minister and it was payback time. Buried in his first budget was a provision to exempt from capital gains tax donations of stock to charity. Adding this new exemption to the existing tax credit for donations to charities means that the donor pays only 40 percent of the dollars he donates. Taxpayers pick up the rest.

The Fraser Institute is a registered charity. Of course, not only the Fraser will benefit from this new exemption. There are many thousands of registered charities in Canada, but only a few are likely to see their funding increase. Expect large endowments to come the Fraser's way. The institute's annual budget is $6 million and climbing. Hundreds of newly minted Calgary paper multimillionaires own shares in oil companies that have skyrocketed in value over the past few years.

Their shares will continue to rise as long as the government doesn't apply the provisions of the Kyoto Accord. Now they can help the conservative cause at little cost to themselves. Critics of the Fraser Institute will have to grit their teeth, pay their taxes, and bemoan the fact that they are supporting its work. (1)

Sources:

1. Harperstein, Straight.com, By Donald Gutstein, July 6, 2006

2. Marketing the market, Vancouver Review, By: Jon Steeves, Summer 1992

3. Berton, Hurtig slam Fraser Institute.., Vancouver Sun, September 22, 1987:

4. Fraser Dominates Politics, The Province, October 27, 1983

--------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation:

* The Fraser Institute, Roger Douglas and Revisionist History

The Fraser Institute, Roger Douglas and Revisionist History

Roger Douglas has been a regular speaker at the Fraser, beginning with his first appearance in 1989.

Fresh off his dismantling of the New Zealand government, he was ready to instruct others on the art of radical reform.

However, in the case of New Zealand in 1984, when Douglas took his post as finance minister; a bit of radical reform was necessary.

They were virtually bankrupt, after several years of Keynesian policies and over zealous regulation.

The country was within days of defaulting on international loans; New Zealand's overseas diplomats were asked how much foreign cash they could raise on their credit cards. An urgent devaluation was needed to stem the outflows. (1)

But Douglas was like Margaret Thatcher on crack, and many of his actions had horrible results. He was the Yang without the Yin, and that lack of balance would cause the whole thing to come crashing down.

Roger Douglas's Revisionist History

Though the popular theory is that former New Zealand finance minister Roger Douglas (1984-1989), turned the fortunes of his country around, the fact is, that while there was a temporary change in their economic position, much of it was an illusion.

He did bring in much needed cash, but his actions were too simplistic, with little or no forethought.

Roger Douglas, a diminutive, dogged accountant ... unleashed free-market policies with such pace that they blindsided most New Zealanders — including [Prime Minister David] Lange. Douglas floated the New Zealand dollar, wooed foreign banks, wiped away controls on credit, foreign-exchange transactions and import tariffs. The once sacrosanct farmers lost their state subsidies ... (1)

He also privatized 60% of state-owned companies, fired 55% of the government workforce and placed the central bank chairman on a performance contract. But it was too much too soon, and it would end badly.

His far-right policies were already alienating some supporters, but the prime minister continued to give Douglas free reign.

" ...he continued to support the Douglas experiment until the fearful stock-market crash that October [1987]. The New Zealand market dropped the furthest in the world; its recovery took the longest.

The shock caused Lange to argue that it was "time for a cup of tea" and to rein Douglas in — but not before tens of thousands of people lost their jobs. Eventually, Douglas, fuming, walked out of Cabinet. Lange, worn out, depressed and drinking heavily, resigned in 1989. It was a sad end to Labour's great economic experiment.

According to conventional economic wisdom, New Zealand had headed down the path of righteousness. But while the old, closed economy held no hope for the future, the gains had been oversold; economic growth remained, for the most part, slower than that of the rest of the developed world; productivity and living standards barely moved for years. (1)

However, Canada's neoconservatives have lauded Roger Douglas as the guru of finance. Why?

I think the answer is pretty simple. Their goals are not to direct Canada toward a bright economic future, but simply to "starve the beast". Douglas did that in spades.

So the Fraser invite him to speak on a regular basis, not for his smarts but his moxie; and his simple message: "don't blink".

Sources:

1. 1979-1989 David Lange, Time Magaazine, By Bernard Lagan, October 29, 2009

How to Create a Business-Financed Propaganda Infrastructure

Think tanks are not a new concept, and have been around for some time. Often associated with institutes of higher learning, they were a vital tool for any government.

Initially, however, their political purpose was to aid legislators with policy proposals, by providing data relevant to their decision-making, prior to putting it into action.

For instance, if they were drafting policy dealing with unemployment, they might commission reports on labour demands, and the potential for providing training programs to meet those demands. That kind of thing.

However, most of the think tanks now, that provide the infrastructure for the neoconservative/reform agenda, work in the reverse.

They are not expected to give advice on policy. Instead, the politicians present their policy, and ask the 'think tank' to sell it, with reports that get fed to the media, or in pamphlets published by the institute. Therefore, any facts and figures must match the finished product, not help to create it.

The number of these so-called think tanks that help to sell the neoconservative agenda, have grown dramatically during the last two decades. And yet many of them are funded by the same industries and foundations.

And their reports are very similar, giving the appearance of a broader consensus, when in fact; they were all just presented with the same foregone conclusion.

One group that has provided a great deal of support to the reform movement, is the Donner Foundation. Right-wing journalist and author, Adam Daifallah spoke of Donner as:

... the lifeblood of conservative research in this country. A decade ago, with a mission to “encourage individual responsibility and private initiative to help Canadians solve their social and economic problems,” and an annual giving budget of over $5 million, the Donner made a huge difference. From 1993 to 1999, under the leadership of executive directors Patrick Luciani and Devon Cross, it provided seed money to start a host of topnotch free-market think-tanks across Canada: the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the Montreal Economic Institute, the Frontier Institute, the Society for Advancing Educational Research (dedicated to promoting charter schools), the conservative The Next City magazine (now defunct), and Energy Probe (a free market–oriented environmental organization). (1)

Perhaps the most influential for the Harper government though has been the Fraser Institute. Before helping to create the Reform Party, Stephen Harper spent a great deal of time at the Institute, and the relationship has grown considerably since then.

Sources:

1. Rescuing Canada's Right, By: Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin, Western Standard, November 8, 2004