I'd never thought about this until I listened to this radio program.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_op
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture#Sixties_and_seventies_counterculture
It doesn't sound like such a far-fetched theory when we consider all the other stuff the US government has pulled off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183
People were figuring out that the govenment was lying to them about why they were in Vietnam. The counter-culture was thinking independently. The government was losing it's ability to form the people's political thinking. Whether it was a black op or not, the government used it to discredit the movement.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
(exerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of people were finding out what was really going on. It makes sense that the government would try to discredit the movement.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_op
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture#Sixties_and_seventies_counterculture
It doesn't sound like such a far-fetched theory when we consider all the other stuff the US government has pulled off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183
People were figuring out that the govenment was lying to them about why they were in Vietnam. The counter-culture was thinking independently. The government was losing it's ability to form the people's political thinking. Whether it was a black op or not, the government used it to discredit the movement.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
(exerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of people were finding out what was really going on. It makes sense that the government would try to discredit the movement.
