Here’s How The Corporations Defeat Political Movements

| Strategize!

Above: AP/Cassandra Vinograd

The Corporate Strategy to Win The War Against Grassroots Activists: Stratfor’s Strategies

Divide activists into four groups: Radicals, Idealists, Realists and Opportunists. The Opportunists are in it for themselves and can be pulled away for their own self-interest. The Realists can be convinced that transformative change is not possible and we must settle for what is possible.  Idealists can be convinced they have the facts wrong and pulled to the Realist camp.  Radicals, who see the system as corrupt and needing transformation, need to be isolated and discredited, using false charges to assassinate their character is a common tactic.

Part 1 of this exclusive Mint Press News investigation examined the strategies employed by Stratfor precursor Pagan International. So named for its founder Rafael Pagan, corporate clients hired the company with the aim of defusing grassroots movements mobilized against them around the world.

Part 2 takes a closer look at how Pagan International’s successor, Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin (MBD), revised and refined these strategies — and how what began as a corporate public-relations firm evolved into the private intelligence agency Stratfor, which wages information warfare against today’s activists and organizers.

Rafael Pagan — who died in 1993 — was not invited to be a part of his former associate’s new firm, Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin. His tactic of conquering and dividing activist movements and isolating the “fanatic activist leaders” lived on, though, through his former business partner, Jack Mongoven.

Mongoven teamed up with Alvin Biscoe and Ronald Duchin to create MBD in 1988. While “Biscoe appears to have been a largely silent partner at MBD,” according to the Center for Media and Democracy, Mongoven and Duchin played public-facing starring roles for the firm.

Duchin, like Pagan, had a military background. A graduate of the U.S. Army War College and “one of the original members of [Army] DELTA” — part of the broader Joint Special Operations Command that killed Osama Bin Laden — Duchin had jobs as a special assistant to the secretary of defense and as spokesman for Veterans for Foreign Wars prior to coming to Pagan.

Duchin served as head of the Pentagon’s news division during “Operation Eagle Claw,” President Jimmy Carter’s failed 1980 mission to use special forces to capture the hostages held in Iran.

Referred to by The Atlantic as the “Desert One Debacle” in a story Duchin served as a key confidential source for — as revealed in an email in the “Global Intelligence Files” announcing Duchin’s 2010 death — “Eagle Claw” ended with eight U.S. troops dying, four wounded, one helicopter destroyed, and President Carter’s reputation in the tank. The failed and lethal mission served as the impetus for the creation of the U.S. Special Operations.

Largely avoiding the limelight while working as Pagan’s vice president for Issue management and strategy — the brains of the operation — Duchin became a notorious figure among dedicated critical observers of the public relations industry while co-heading MBD. During MBD’s 15 years of existence, its clients included Big Tobaccothe chemical industryBig Agriculture and probably many other industries never identified due to MBD’s secretive nature.

MBD worked on behalf of Big Tobacco to fend off any and all regulatory efforts aimed in its direction. Philip Morris paid Jack Mongoven $85,000 for his intelligence-gathering prowess in 1993.

Get Government Off Our Back,” an RJ Reynolds front group created in 1994 by MBD for the price of $14,000 per month, serves as a case in point of the type of work MBD was hired to do by Big Tobacco.

“The firm has developed initiatives for RJ Reynolds that advocate pro-tobacco goals through outside organizations; among other projects, the firm organized veterans organizations to oppose the workplace smoking regulation proposed by OSHA,” explains a 2007 study appearing in the American Journal of Public Health. “[It] was created to combat increasing numbers of proposed federal and state regulations on the use and sale of tobacco products.”

Paralleling the Koch Family Foundations-funded Americans for Prosperity groups of today, “Get Government Off Our Back” held rallies nationwide in March 1995 as part of “Regulatory Revolt Month.”

“Get Government Off Our Back” dovetailed perfectly with the Republican Party’s 1994 “Contract with America” that froze new federal regulations. The text of the “Contract” matched “Get Government Off Our Back” “nearly verbatim,” according to the American Journal of Public Health study.

‘Radicals, Idealists, Realists, Opportunists’

While its client work was noteworthy, the formula Duchin created to divide and conquer activist movements — a regurgitation of what he learned while working under the mentorship of Rafael Pagan — has stood the test of time. It is still employed to this day by Stratfor.

Duchin replaced Pagan’s “fanatic activist leaders” with “radicals” and created a three-step formula to divide and conquer activists by breaking them up into four subtypes, as described in a 1991 speech delivered to the National Cattleman’s Association titled, “Take an Activist Apart and What Do You Have? And How Do You Deal with Him/Her?”

The subtypes: “radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists.”

Radical activists “want to change the system; have underlying socio/political motives’ and see multinational corporations as ‘inherently evil,’” explained Duchin. “These organizations do not trust the … federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment. They believe, rather, that individuals and local groups should have direct power over industry … I would categorize their principal aims … as social justice and political empowerment.”

The “idealist” is easier to deal with, according to Duchin’s analysis.

“Idealists…want a perfect world…Because of their intrinsic altruism, however, … [they] have a vulnerable point,” he told the audience. “If they can be shown that their position is in opposition to an industry … and cannot be ethically justified, they [will] change their position.”

The two easiest subtypes to join the corporate side of the fight are the “realists” and the “opportunists.” By definition, an “opportunist” takes the opportunity to side with the powerful for career gain, Duchin explained, and has skin in the game for “visibility, power [and] followers.”

The realist, by contrast, is more complex but the most important piece of the puzzle, says Duchin.

“[Realists are able to] live with trade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. The realists should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue.”

Duchin outlined a corresponding three-step strategy to “deal with” these four activist subtypes. First, isolate the radicals. Second, “cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming realists. And finally, co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.

“If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution,” Duchin outlined in closing his speech.

Bringing the ‘Duchin Formula’ to Stratfor

Alvin Biscoe passed away in 1998 and Jack Mongoven passed away in 2000. Just a few years later, MBD — now only Ronald Duchin and Jack’s son, Bartholomew or “Bart” — merged with Stratfor in 2003.

A book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton — “Trust Us, We’re Experts!” — explains that MBD promotional literature boasted that the firm kept “extensive files [on] forces for change [which] can often include activist and public interest groups, churches, unions and/or academia.”

“A typical dossier includes an organization’s historical background, biographical information on key personnel, funding sources, organizational structure and affiliations, and a ‘characterization’ of the organization aimed at identifying potential ways to co-opt or marginalize the organization’s impact on public policy debates,” the authors proceeded to explain.

MBD’s “extensive files” on “forces for change” soon would morph into Stratfor’s “Global Intelligence Files” after the merger.

What’s clear in sifting through the “Global Intelligence Files” documents, which were obtained by WikiLeaks as a result of Jeremy Hammond’s December 2011 hack of Stratfor, is that it was a marriage made in heaven for MBD and Stratfor.

The “Duchin formula” has become a Stratfor mainstay, carried on by Bart Mongoven. Duchin passed away in 2010.

In a December 2010 PowerPoint presentation to the oil company Suncor on how best to “deal with” anti-Alberta tar sands activists, Bart Mongoven explains how to do so explicitly utilizing the “radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists” framework. In that presentation, he places the various environmental groups fighting against the tar sands in each category and concludes the presentation by explaining how Suncor can win the war against them.

Bart Mongoven described the American Petroleum Institute as his “biggest client” in a January 2010 email exchange, lending explanation to his interest in environmental and energy issues.

Mongoven also appears to have realized something was off about Chesapeake Energy’s financial support for the Sierra Club, judging by November 2009 email exchanges. It took “idealists” in the environmental movement a full 2 ½ years to realize the same thing, after Time magazine wrote a major investigation revealing the fiduciary relationship between one of the biggest shale gas “fracking” companies in the U.S. and one of the country’s biggest environmental groups.

“The clearest evidence of a financial relationship is the note in the Sierra Club 2008 annual report that American Clean Skies Foundation was a financial supporter that year,” wrote Mongoven in an email to the National Manufacturing Association’s vice president of communications, Luke Popovich. “According to McClendon, American Clean Skies Foundation was created by Chesapeake and others in 2007.”

Bart Mongoven also used the “realist/idealist” paradigm to discuss climate change legislation’s chances for passage in a 2007 article on Stratfor’s website.

“Realists who support a strong federal regime are drawn to the idea that with most in industry calling for action on climate change, there is no time like the present,” Mongoven wrote. “Idealists, on the other hand, argue that with momentum on their side, there is little that industry could do in the face of a Democratic president and Congress, and therefore time is on the environmentalists’ side. The idealists argue that they have not gone this far only to pass a half-measure, particularly one that does not contain a hard carbon cap.”

And how best to deal with “radicals” like Julian Assange, founder and executive director of WikiLeaks, and whistleblower Bradley Manning, who gave WikiLeaks the U.S. State Department diplomatic cables, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the “Collateral Murder” video? Bart Mongoven has a simple solution to “isolate” them, as suggested by Duchin’s formula.

“I’m in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get [Assange] and his servers off the streets. And I’d feed that shit head soldier [Bradley Manning] to the first pack of wild dogs I could find,” Mongoven wrote in one email exchange revealed by the “Global Intelligence Files.” “Or perhaps just do to him whatever the Iranians are doing to our sources there.”

Indeed, the use of “trumped up charges” is often a way the U.S. government deals with radical activists, as demonstrated clearly during the days of the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program during the 1960s, as well as in modern-day Occupy movement-related cases in Cleveland and Chicago.

‘Information economy’s equivalent of guns’

Just days after the Sept. 11, 2011, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, The Austin Chronicle published an article on Stratfor that posed the rhetorical question as its title, “Is Knowledge Power?

The answer, simply put: yes.

“What Stratfor produces is the information economy’s equivalent of guns: knowledge about the world that can change the world, quickly and irrevocably,” wrote Michael Erard for The Chronicle. “So if Stratfor succeeds, it’s because more individuals and corporations want access to information that helps them dissect an unstable world — and are willing to pay steady bucks for it.”

When it comes down to it, Stauber concurs with the “guns” metaphor and Duchin’s “war” metaphors.

“Corporations wage war upon activists to ensure that corporate activities, power, profits and control are not diminished or significantly reformed,” said Stauber. “The burden is on the activists to make fundamental social change in a political environment where the corporate interests dominate both politically and through the corporate media.”

Stauber also believes activists have a steep learning curve and are currently being left in the dust by Pagan, MBD, Stratfor and others.

“The Pagan/MBD/Stratfor operatives are much more sophisticated about social change than the activists they oppose, they have limitless resources at their disposal, and their goal is relatively simple: make sure that ultimately the activists fail to win fundamental reforms,” he said. “Duchin and Mongoven were ruthless, and I think they were often amused by the naivete, egotism, antics and failures of activists they routinely fooled and defeated. Ultimately, this is war, and the best warriors will win.”

One thing’s for certain: Duchin’s legacy lives on through his “formula.”

“The 4-step formula is brilliant and has certainly proven itself effective in preventing the democratic reforms we need,” Stauber remarked, bringing us back to where we started in 1982 with Rafael Pagan’s remarks about isolating the “fanatic activist leaders.”

This article is the second part of a two-part series on Stratfor. Check out the first part, “Divide And Conquer: Unpacking Stratfor’s Rise To Power.”

  • egbegb

    Paraphrasing a friend,
    When politicians and “grass roots” activists attack a business that business has a duty and right to defend itself.

  • Kevin Zeese

    And, when big business and government attack the people?

  • egbegb

    “and when big business and the government attack the people” – now there we are in agreement.

    What do do?

    Shrink gov and business: both or neither is my view.

  • Mary Wildfire

    As the article points out, business and government, which have largely merged, hold all the aces. You may see them as having a right and duty to “defend themselves” but they are defending the status quo against the common interest. If they win every time–and for a long time now, they have–in the end a few people own the Earth and it isn’t habitable by humans anymore.

  • Michael Mullen

    When business and govt begin to act together against the people we are nearing the point where Jefferson would say we need to remove that government and begin anew!

  • I think it’s interesting, noting Jefferson in this context, how he held such an ideal of small, individualist, agrarian land owners with a ‘small government’ mentality took such a pain to ‘purchase’ the large land mass that was ‘bought’ in The Louisiana Purchase, but let someone far more learned explain what I’m saying… Take it away, John Green, of Crash Course US History!

  • Three reference sources:

    *Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media*
    Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
    By Nick Fielding and Ian Cobain
    The Guardian, Thursday 17 March 2011

    *Military PsyOps Used on Senators*
    By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post Thursday, February 24, 2011

    *Activists Framed as Terrorists Information Dump { Includes some “Social Movement PsyOp aka Mind Crowd* }

  • Steve

    Of course the article leaves out the current radicalism espoused by the far right currently in charge of the Republican party, the USSC, the House, and the Senate (in the de facto sense of having a large enough presence there to effectively block any action they want to).

  • This is an important article, an important message.

    It’s notable that he sees the “Idealists” as naive, and the “radicals” as basically the worst problem, the people who cannot be stopped or co-opted but only stripped of allies in hopes that alone they will be too weak to create change.

    I think he’s right on both counts. Not that idealism is naive. But in the modern setting, when idealists cease to be naive, if they’re still idealists that means they’ve learned enough to be radicalized.

    In fact, this guy’s process suggests a counter-process, almost symmetrical in nature. The way to achieve change is to educate realists and idealists, while isolating opportunists. The goal is to move idealists and realists into or at least towards the radical camp, as they come to realize that from both an idealistic and realistic perspective, the status quo is untenable and only radical solutions will create genuine change. This will create a larger core of the people that the corporate flacks themselves admit they don’t really know how to cope with.

    At a minimum, this information about corporate strategy should be widely disseminated among activists, so that if nothing else the realists come to understand that success hinges on their support for the idealists and radicals rather than on naively trusting corporate messages designed to divide and conquer.

  • Pingback: Popular Resistance Newsletter: A Smarter, Stronger Movement | PopularResistance.Org()

  • tomtomrobot

    Can you please correct the date for the 9-11 attacks from September 1, 2011 to 2001.

  • Pingback: Information authoritarians vs. ‘information anarchists’: the silent (cyber) war that affects us all | Darker Net()

  • Pingback: Leaked Stratfor Powerpoint Shows Corporation’s Fear Of Activist Campaigns | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Or you organize the public and fight back in all the ways you can legally.
    stop investing your value into a currency that is based on debt and invest in one that is based on developing our future,
    there are a number of ways to do something about this. You just have to look and when you find a good one, spread the word.

  • Brandon

    There concept of an independent government is a myth perpetuated to make us think that there is an arbiter between big business and workers. In fact, the financial powers and big business pay for the political campaigns and contribute legions of officials to the bureaucracy that makes decisions regarding implementation of laws, interpretation of policies, and appointments of the minions of middle managers of the system.

  • Ed Bradford

    My response was that a business that is attacked by politicians (a.k.a. Government) has a duty and right to defend itself. I ask you how the public suffered under John D. Rockefeller’s monopoly on kerosene? How did the public suffer under Bill Gates’ Windows monopoly? I suggest the public was advantaged under both. Big government is far more to be feared than big business.

  • Pingback: Links 5/8/2013: GNOME 3.9.5 , OLPC Tablet Distribution Channel Expands | Techrights()

  • “isolating fanatic activist leaders” is something that many fanatic activist leaders can easily do without any extra help from “Corporations”
    Think of all the ‘chemtrail’ nut-jobs that have basically auto-discredited any serious discussion around what kinds of additives the FAA has allowed into jet fuels. Or what contrails are doing to the Earth’s ability to radiate heat (IR energy) back up into space at night – due to more clouds being artificially created through the added nucleation caused air travel.

  • Kevin Zeese

    They are trying to isolate radicals who accurately describe the political situation as requiring transformation. The people you are describing do not have a following, usually. The corporations and security state are worried about effective radicals who empower people in the movement to take effective action. The self-destructors that you describe they can do not have to do anything with.

  • Pingback: Systemic Suppression: How a Movement Can be Undermined | NeoActivist()

  • The example I used has created a fairly wide public perception, which damages the image of anyone that wishes to discuss the role of commercial aviation in global warming, etc. Take a look at how many tens of thousands that follow associated Facebook pages (etc) on that particular subject, and the mainstream exposure that this fringe has been provided, before being too quick to presume there are “no followers”.

    In terms of the larger subject at hand…Who would you describe as a “fanatic activist leader” that fills the role described in the article?

  • If you look at the PR people’s description of “radicals”, it has relatively little to do with being “out there” or even really “fanatical” in the sense we normally think of, although they do use that word. Rather they emphasize people who have broader systemic critiques of our society and economic system, people who see the particular issue at hand that the PR people are trying to spin, as just one example of wider problems. The PR folks consider such people “fanatical” in the sense that they cannot be persuaded that they are wrong, bought off or really negotiated with.
    From a radical’s perspective, that’s not so much because the radicals are “fanatical” in a religious-close-minded sense, as because they know the issues better than the PR people do and their systemic critique is accurate, so it’s hard for PR warriors to lead them astray.

    Conspiracy-theory nutjobs are not the “radicals” these PR people are talking about.

  • Pingback: Be Wary – AFL-CIO Joins Effort To Stop The TPP | PopularResistance.Org()

  • JR

    If you apply this principal to the two major parties, it explains why people who are in the GOP and who espouse a drastic shrinking of the facist-federal government-corporation’s power, an end to endless wars, protection of worker rights and pay (ie. opposing immigration), auditing of the bankster’s fed reserve, are labeled ‘terrorist’ and every attempt is made to isolate them from activist on the left, and the Rinos and Independents (some idealist, and realist mixed in with hoards of opportunist). On the democrat side, radicals isolate themselves with counterproductive antics (street theatre and other oddball behavior). Plus they’re usually dirt poor from not being opportunist or realist. So power is held on the dem side – in relatively equal parts – by opportunist, idealist and realist.

    Idealist think the ACA was passed to fulfill their wishes, but it was really passed by opportunist working for insurance companies and persons interested in ‘people control’ by and for THE empire.

    The so-called mj ‘legalization’ initiative being prepared by dems in Cal fits the pattern. It’s an opportunist scam all the way. The radicals know it’s a big pharma backed step backwards aimed at destroying smokers and the current industry, but idealist are being turned into realist with the ‘big gov control including wildly excessive taxation tax and overbearing regulation is good’ argument. The realist figure its the best that can be accomplished (legalization that really is the opposite). The people who are really for true absolute legalization are not even included in the discussion. They are planning an initiative for 2016 because they are planning on creating a gigantic gov control apparatus, and through taxes becoming the dealer. They are going to terrorize any competition with a wave of tax evasion criminal charges, and force ill persons to pay 100x what they should for their medicine. I’ll take small government any day over what the dems have planned for us.

    The Koch bros have influence over the fake corporate Tea Party, but on the grassroots level they have no influence. The majority of the Tea Party faction of the GOP is made up of people who stand for individual liberty. Don’t be fooled. They are the only game in town right now if you believe in freedom. The raids on organic food producers and continuing jailing of MJ proprietors is proof that the gov needs to be scaled back big time, not expanded and given more power.

  • Pingback: The Tasks Of The People-Powered Movement For 2014 | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Pingback: The Tasks of the People-Powered Movement for 2014  Dark Politricks()

  • Pingback: The way forward for the popular movement in 2014 | ROAR Magazine()

  • Pingback: The Tasks Of The People-Powered Movement For 2014 » Clearing the FOG Radio()

  • Pingback: World War III: A status update | GeorgieBC's Blog()

  • pascalmolineaux

    True enough, but I would likke to differ when it comes to human-indced global climate change: both science, the hard facts of science, AND the hard facts of increasing climate violence and extremes with increasing human and financial costs associated WILL push us to take action. The only thing the likes of oil-financed denialists “Lets burry our heads in the sandbox” and pretend “business as usual” is an option can achieve is to confuse the debate, slow down needed decisive action and ensure a greater scale of human suffering.. Belive me, history will judge such self-interested efforts harshly….

  • Pingback: Institute of the Black World » We Owe it to MLK to Carry his Torch For a Just Economy()

  • spixleatedlifeform

    Welcome to the Land of the Home, Free of the Brave.


  • Pingback: America’s Biggest Crises Are Rooted in the Fact That the Economy Is Rigged for the Wealthiest - Occupedia()

  • Pingback: Economic Justice Is The Solution - NewsWorld365()

  • Pingback: Free will and seductive coercion | GeorgieBC's Blog()

  • Pingback: Climate Crisis Connects Us, Climate Justice Requires Unity | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Pingback: The 4th Media » Plundering the Planet: Rigged Corporate “Free Trade Partnerships” and “Climate Change Agreements”()

  • Pingback: Climate Crisis Connects Us, Climate Justice Requires Unity - Truth-Out |

  • Pingback: Climate Crisis Connects Us, Climate Justice Requires Unity » Clearing the FOG Radio()

  • Last Resort

    Agree’d. Opportunists (under a misleading name – “Power of Green”) destroyed Occupy LA.

  • Last Resort

    I see it all being ran by opportunists on both sides. There’s nothing the GOP does to shrink government and corporate welfare. In fact their plan is to turn government into corporate welfare on the populous’s backs. It appears the same goal belies the Dems too. They all say one thing but, like all good opportunists, do another.

  • Pingback: #opDeathEaters FAQ | GeorgieBC's Blog()

  • Pingback: #OpDeathEaters – Frequently Asked Questions – Media misreporting on objectives of #OpDeathEaters | Judaic Paedophilia()

  • Pingback: The Dance Of Liberals And Radicals | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Aquifer

    So don’t vote for corp funded candidates …

  • Aquifer

    Ah, another fan of Big Brother – make no mistake, that much control in the hands of any single entity or interest, public or private is bad news ….

  • purplelibraryguy

    I don’t know much about Rockefeller’s monopoly on kerosene. But if you think the public was advantaged by the Windows monopoly, you don’t know much about that subject so we’re even. The Windows monopoly was maintained in part by a conscious process of breaking standards, interoperability and so on, which in turn hampered technological advance considerably. It’s no accident, for instance, that new ways to use the web largely didn’t evolve until Internet Explorer lost its effective-monopoly status.
    And then of course there’s the simple dollar cost. Just because the cost of Windows and Office are often hidden does not mean they are free; the Windows monopoly has been maintained for the purpose of extracting rent and it has been very successful at doing so.

  • mwildfire

    I think you are an old-fashioned conservative, the kind who worries about big government and sees corporate power as a minor issue. The reality is that corporations and government have merged, creating one big, powerful entity–and this is worse than either Big Government or Big Corporations alone. Throw in Big Media–which is owned by big corporations, and entwined with others, enabling both government and corporations by distracting and misinforming the public–and you have a corporate-government-media complex, or as it was called, the Establishment (but it;s a lot bigger and more dangerous than it was then).

  • mwildfire

    Don’t vote, you’re saying? The problem is that we have a SYSTEM, doggedly defended by the US Supreme Court, in which corruption is guaranteed; in which the candidate that spends the most wins over 90% of the time. In which the wealthy, and corporate interests, must be allowed to put so much money on their favored candidates that it’s virtually impossible to unseat them. Thus, a non corporate-funded candidate has essentially no chance. Unless said person happens to be individually wealthy, in which case it’s highly unlikely that s/he is representative of the needs of the majority, who are not.

  • Aquifer

    I see this expressed over and over – the idea that money spent determines outcome – but don’t confuse correlation with causation – are you maintaining that corps actually buy people’s votes? Have you cashed your check yet? Funny, i never got mine – but then i didn’t vote for a corp candidate …

    How much of the population thinks that there is too much money in politics? What if all those folks voted for the candidate who spent the least? Bingo – money’s influence negated, in fact turned on its head … The point I am trying to make is that, when all is said and done, it is we the people who decide whether we, ourselves, will be bought ….

    We have to stop making excuses for why we make such crappy choices at the polls ….

  • mwildfire

    Aquifer, you are naive. The item left out of your equation is the corporate media. No candidate is buying votes directly–nearly all that money goes to pay consultants and buy ads. Yes, it’s too bad most voters’ choices are based on those ads, but it IS the reality. The only candidates who aren’t corporate-funded are third-party candidates–the media either portrays them as weirdo fringe kooks or ignores them entirely; often they are kept out of debates. To the average person, this is enough to ensure that they are no more than an unfamiliar name on the ballot. People leaning toward a third party vote can often be persuaded that they’re “throwing their vote away” which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy–enough people accept that and vote holding their noses that third-party candidates rarely make it out of the single digits. Then, if all else fails, the computerized voting systems can be easily hacked by the powers that be.
    I will turn 60 this year, I vote in virtually all elections, and I have never seen a candidate I enthusiastically supported take office. Nor do I expect ever to see that. Control of the “mainstream” media is the key. Not only in the ways I just outlined, but in forming general opinion such that it won’t challenge the rich and powerful.

  • Pingback: REALPOLITIK: Here’s How The Corporations Defeat Political Movements (Part 2) | RIELPOLITIK()

  • Pingback: Newsletter: Making Protest Personal; Take It To Their Homes | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Pingback: Bookmarks 06/28/16 – Luckdancing()

  • Pingback: Bookmarks – Luckdancing()

  • Pingback: History Has Opened The Door, Now We Must Walk Through It | PopularResistance.Org()