Comment by Brian Flemming on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:45:47 EDT

Dr., Thanks as always for your patient responses to the usual spew that litters the comments here on Blogcritics (boy, am I get weary of that spew--guess I'll have to post more often). It does seem that people didn't actually read the article I linked to. ]]>

Comment by Doctor Slack on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:13:41 EDT

Good article, Brian. Very eye-opening. Thanks. To Al: Anyone who automatically stoops to flinging "Saddam-lover" insults at opponents of the war has no business talking about either the "goddamn lying" or "twisted hostility" of others. And: "You've just gotten some jackass author to do a hatchet job" -- hmmm, is Brian an editor at Harper's? Frankly, Brian's "hostility" to creepy fundamentalists -- of any stripe -- strikes me as perfectly justified. At the very least, one should be a tad wary of people who cite Ho Chi Minh, Hitler and Osama bin Laden with approval, doncha think? "The only even HINT of something that even might involve this group misbehaving is the vague insinuation that they might have somehow associated with a dictator in Indonesia- with no explanation of how." Al either didn't read the offending paragraph very closely or is being deliberately misleading about its contents. Here it is: "During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators." Their connection, therefore, was in getting these leaders to organize "fellowship groups." The paragraph goes on: "During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. "We work with power where we can," the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, "build new power where we can't."" In the interview, Sharlet is more specific about the nature of their influence: 'GNN: When you say 'do business,' was it all about actual business deals? SHARLET: I wouldn't say it was all about business deals. But if you happened to be praying with someone and you were done praying and said, "Hey, I have some F-16s to sell..." They would deny there is any connection. They are pretty careful about those kinds of things. They will never say, "We are out here to help set you up in business." They will always help out their friends. "Let me introduce you to someone. The Prime Minister of Malaysia is coming." GNN: It sounds to me like some sort of extended Skull and Bones, an Old Boys Network crafted onto a religious context. SHARLET: The religious context is real. The Old Boys Network is about business. This is about more than business. This is about maintaining a certain kind of power, a certain view of how power should be distributed. The Episcopalian Old Boys Network was a lot more easygoing than this. This is a lot more militaristic. Really at its fundamental core, almost monarchist. We would be told time and time again, "Christ's kingdom is not a democracy" This is their model for leadership. They would often say, "Everything you need to know about government is right there in the cross - it's vertical not horizontal."' And more from their interview, on their philosophy: 'GNN: In that vein, reading your article I got the impression they are praising guys like Adolph Hitler and Ghengis Khan – a lot. Is that a fair assessment of your intention? SHARLET: In fact, Harpers made me cut back on that stuff. [They said] 'We know it's true, but this is already so much to absorb.' That's why I included that line at the end of the story. The leader of the group is having dinner with the younger members of that group and is talking about the bond, the covenant. And he says, "Can anyone think of someone who had a covenant?" And the answer, of course, and everyone knows it, is "Hitler." ... GNN: Define what they mean by Hitler Concept. SHARLET: A loyal leadership cadre, which is interesting because guys like Hitler and Stalin were famous for purging, but they seem to focus on a couple of guys. "If two or three agree" is a phrase they use a lot. If you can get together and focus you can accomplish anything. You don't need to sway the electorate. You don't need to convert everyone to Christ. Everyone doesn't have to believe in Christ, and that's where they differ from other fundamentalists. Some fundamentalists really distrust them for that. [They say] "We need to convert everyone, the high and the low." The Family says, "No we don't need the high." All these guys Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden is another guy they cite a lot, are guys who understood the power of a political avant garde.' Do people like this give me the creeps? If Sharlet's perception of them is accurate, hell yes. He alludes to an earlier LA Times piece on them as well that wasn't followed up, I'd be curious to see what it says. ]]>

Comment by Al Barger on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:53:52 EDT

Brian, your twisted hostility to religion continues unabated. They're trying to spread to good news of Jesus Christ unto all the world. You've just gotten some jackass author to do a hatchet job, but from this posting it appears to be absolutely nothing more than name calling. The only even HINT of something that even might involve this group misbehaving is the vague insinuation that they might have somehow associated with a dictator in Indonesia- with no explanation of how. Then your jerk goes from there to say that they are endorsing the genocide of a dictator. I strongly suspect that he's making up words to put in their mouths, or as we would call it down here on the farm, he's just goddam lying. By your lights, Saddam Hussein weren't so bad. We should have just let him go, but nice Christians wanting to evangelize, why they're pretty much Hitler incarnate. We need to step up and do something about them. What world do you live in? ]]>

Comment by mike on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:02:14 EDT

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with these people? ]]>

Comment by Brian Flemming on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:01:59 EDT

Bob, No and no. If you read the article, you'll see that the author gained a unique sort of access. The Family members saw him as a potential member. The Family keeps its membership and plans closely guarded, but they are zealots after all, and they can't help but reveal some things to those who might be potential recruits. ]]>

Comment by Bob Mozark on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:30:57 EDT

Let me get this straight. It is a secret conspriracy yet it makes its written archives freely available to authors and journalists? And its members openly discuss in public the goals and motivations of the movement? ]]>

Blogcritics Comments on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by Brian Flemming on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by Doctor Slack on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by Al Barger on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by mike on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by Brian Flemming on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"

Comment by Bob Mozark on Not a conspiracy--a "covenant"