Conquest By Convergence

Conquest by Convergence: The Case Against Elite Convergence - by Paul David Collins ©, 2003

Among one of the most absurd and irrational myths circulated by the orthodoxy of political science is the concept of elite convergence. According to this hopelessly flawed view, the problems of injustice and inequity that destabilize societal order are remedied when opposing factions of the ruling class arrive at an agreement. Hypothetically, this coalitional realignment within the elite will deter further deviation from democratic norms. In harmonious consensus, the elite paternally guide the ignorant sheep of the lower classes into the future. What this view overlooks is the fact that the problems of injustice and inequity originated with the very same meddlesome plutocracy. All that coalitional realignment guarantees is the increased effectiveness of the oligarchic machinations of the elite. The final result is not a socalled "consolidation of democracy," but an obliteration of democracy instead. In truth, elite convergence is the covert galvanization of democracy's enemies. Whether they are in agreement or in discord, a pack of wolves will always devour their quarry. Likewise, the assumption that individual liberties are now safe because its foes no longer quarrel amongst themselves is a selfimmolating delusion. Evident in academia's concept of elite convergence is a blatant contempt for the middle class, no doubt a direct corollary of the elite's firm grip on learning institutions. Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, an academic who had intimate ties to the ruling class, voiced this contempt in Tragedy and Hope: . . . the petty bourgeoisie . . . millions of people who regard themselves as middle class and are under all the middle anxieties and pressures ... [T]hey are often very insecure, envious, filled with hatreds, and are generally the chief recruits for any radical right, fascist, or hate campaign ... and live in an atmosphere of envy, pettiness, insecurity and frustration (Quigley, pp. 1243-44, 1966). This very statement represents a point of convergence for all of the elite factions. Irrespective of their various disputes, all of the elite agree with Quigley's arrogant contention. Here lies the fundamental problem. The convergence of forces holding this view of the average man invariably results in bloodshed and enslavement. There is no better evidence than the case of the Congo, where elite convergence resulted in the subjugation of an entire central African country. The following is an examination of the Congo and its conquest by elite consensus.

The Case of the Congo The year 1960 saw the rise of anti-colonial sentiments internationally. One of the results of this was the Congo's emergence from Belgian rule. For the first time in over a century, the African nation would be independent (Hough, 1997, p. 1). However, reason to celebrate was short-lived as the region attracted the attention of the blueblood David Rockefeller and his Chase Manhattan conglomerate. It was his hope that Congolese independence would provide him with an opportunity to seize control of the nation's resources from Belgian companies. These resources included coal, cobalt, copper, diamonds, germanium, gold, and manganese (Hough, 1997, p. 1). Belgian elites already established in the area did not appreciate Rockefeller's intrusion into what they considered their property. The Belgian bluebloods opposing Rockefeller were centered in Union Miniere de Haut Katanga (UMHK) and its parent company Societe Generale de Belgique (SG) (Hough, 1997, p. 3). These companies had much to lose should Rockefeller gain the upper hand in the region. What followed, according to Warren Hough, "was textbook plutocratic warfare" (1997, p. 3). On the surface, it appeared as if two governments were engaging in political sparring. However, the Belgian and US governments were merely surrogates for two competing groups of oligarchs. Economist and UN adviser Guy de Amaury-Ribaut provided the most accurate summation: "The main point to understand about this conflict is that the real rivals were not the two governments but the two corporate empires" (Hough, 1997, p. 3). At one point, this clash would even result in the Western elites aligning themselves with their Soviet counterparts and cooperating with the communist world. For a time, in hopes of pushing the Belgians out of the region, the Western elites supported Patrice Lumumba, "a gin-drinking, hashish smoking Communist thug who was called 'a great African leader' by Nikita Khrushev . . . " (Griffin, 1995, p. 148). Lisa Pease tells us that Lumumba "sought and for a time, obtained American financial aid" (1999, p. 1). This was probably done to prevent the Belgian choice for the Congo's leader, Joseph Kasavubu, from coming to power. Shortly after independence was declared, the Congo fell into chaos. The Congolese army turned against the Belgian officers in charge of it. Lumumba supported these mutineers with huge pay raises. This further encouraged the army and it went on a spree of pure carnage that would make the pirates of the Caribbean seem tamed. Residents of European descent fled in fear as the army went about murdering, raping, and pillaging (Griffin, 1995, pg. 148-149). This state of chaos provided the Belgian government with the motive it needed to order its troops back into the Congo (Pease, 1999, p. 1; Griffin, 1995, p. 149). The reason given for this action was to protect the lives and property of Belgians still in the country (Griffin, 1995, p. 149). However, this may have been an attempt on the part of SG and UHMK retainers, as well as front men for other Belgian corporations, to maintain control in the region. The American elites certainly saw it as such and joined with their Soviet counterparts to counter the moves made by the Belgian oligarchs. The United States representative to the UN "sided with a Russian resolution condemning Belgium. They demanded prompt withdrawal of Belgian troops and authorized the United Nations to send its own troops to aid Lumumba" (Griffin, 1995, p. 149). This resulted in the withdrawal of Belgium troops and Lumumba receiving UN protection. In Fourth Reich of the Rich, researcher Des Griffin states: The UN arrivals did little if anything to assist those in real need or to restore law and order. For the most part they stood to one side and watched the territory pillaged . . . and slip increasingly under Communist control (1995, p. 149).

The Lumumba Problem While supporting Lumumba had successfully removed the Belgians from the picture, the move backfired in the face of the US elites. The Congo leader proved to be uncooperative, a fact that should have become obvious in 1959. Lisa Pease writes: In 1959, Lumumba had visited businessmen in New York, where he stated unequivocally, "The exploitation of the mineral riches of the Congo should be primarily for the profit of our own people and other Africans." Affected minerals included copper, gold, diamonds, and uranium. Asked whether the Americans would still have access to uranium, as they had when the Belgians ran the country, Lumumba responded, "Belgium doesn't produce any uranium; it would be to the advantage of both our countries if the Congo and the U.S. worked out their own agreements in the future" (1999, p. 1). U.S. elites had thought it possible to control Lumumba. However, he was becoming an impediment to oligarch control of the region. It is possible that the Lumumba problem is what initiated the convergence between Belgium and American elites as he proved to be a common enemy. In order to maintain access to the minerals in Katanga, the CIA and the Belgium government began to cooperate in the funding and support of Moise Tshombe, leader of the seceded province (Mosley, 1979, p. 462). Behind closed doors, Belgian and American elites began to negotiate. According to a 1985 retrospective study prepared by International Basic Economy Corporation, top executives of Belgian corporations in the Congo and the Rockefeller conglomerate met to bargain. The beginning of these negotiations took place at the 1960 Bilderberg meeting in Burgenstock, Switzerland (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Present at the meeting was Henry Kissinger, the foremost retainer for the Rockefeller dynasty, and Pierre de Wigny, the Belgian foreign minister and former general counsel of the SG trust (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Arrangements for the meeting were made by Prince Bernhard, who had important financial ties to SG (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Further negotiations were held at the 1963 Bilderberg meeting in Cannes, France, and at the 1964 meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia (Hough, 1997, p. 3). An alliance was forming between the powers-that-be to ensure that the Congo was not lost to the rabble. The Lumumba problem was ultimately resolved by assassination. While all parties agreed that Lumumba had to go, the evidence suggests that it was those fronting for the Rockefeller faction that actually took the initiative. The topic arose at a NSC meeting. Leonard Mosley tells us that during the meeting: . . . when a member of the National Security Council suggested that, like all other African leaders so far, he was probably ready for a deal, provided the money was right, the President showed no desire for such a peaceful solution to the Congolese problem. He wanted Lumumba out (1979, p. 462). In testimony before the Church Committee, NSC staff member Robert Johnson stated that, during the NSC meeting, he heard President Eisenhower make what he considered an assassination order: At some time during that discussion, President Eisenhower said something - I can no longer remember his words - that came across to me as an order for the assassination of Lumumba . . . I remember my sense of that moment quite clearly because the President's statement came as a great shock to me (Pease, 1999, p. 2).

Eisenhower's statement should not have come as a shock to anyone. In his biography of Eisenhower, Stephen Ambrose stated: "The elite of the Eastern Establishment moved in on him almost before he occupied his new office" (1983, p. 437). This included the Rockefeller clan. During the forties, the Eisenhowers would hobnob and play bridge with the President of Standard Oil, a major organ in the Rockefeller network of power (Ambrose, 1983, p. 437). Richard Bissell, the individual who handled the assassination of foreign leaders, was yachting off Connecticut and was, thus, unavailable (Mosley, 1979, p. 462). Therefore, DCI Allen Dulles "told the President that he would personally see to the affair . . . " (Mosley, 1979, p. 462). Dulles, like Eisenhower, was in the pocket of the Rockefeller clan. The Dulles were cousins of the Rockefellers and Allen had been a lawyer for the Rockefeller family (Pease, 1999, p.2; Keith, 1994, p. 19). A Rockefeller orchestrated coup was being set into motion. Initially, the CIA tried to kill Lumumba using toothpaste impregnated with lethal fever germs. However, Lumumba was not as concerned with oral hygiene as was believed and the plan failed (Mosley, 1979, p. 463). Ultimately, the Congolese leader died at the hands of Joseph Mobuto, whom Leonard Mosley refers to as "a more effective CIA puppet" (1979, p. 463). Mosley also states "whether Mobuto did the deed at the behest of the CIA or from more personal motives is one of those mysteries time is not likely to elucidate" (1979, p. 463). Regardless of what Mosley says, there is ample evidence to implicate the CIA and support the contention that the assassination was an Agency operation. Lumumba was killed during a failed escape attempt (Mosley, 1979, p. 463). In testimony before the Church Committee, CIA officer Justin O Donnell revealed that he had planned to lure Lumumba away from UN protection. The Congolese leader would then be turned over to his enemies who would execute him (Pease, 1999, p. 3). CIA officer Paul Sakwa would recall Lawrence Devlin, CIA Station Chief in Leopoldville, taking credit for coordinating Lumumba's assassination (Pease, 1999, p. 5). In his book In Search of Enemies, former CIA operative John Stockwell tells of how he was approached by an Agency colleague who claimed to have Lumumba's corpse hidden away in the trunk of his car (1978, p. 105). A serious obstacle had been removed from the oligarchs' path.

The Bluebloods Target Katanga While encouraging Katanga's succession from the Congo initially furthered the bluebloods' goals, the province became a problem. The Belgian and American elites had wanted Katanga as their own feudal estate. Moise Tshombe had different plans. UN adviser Guy de Amaury-Ribaut explains: "Tshombe opposed the invasion of Wall Street financiers and chose secession from the Congo rather than submit to them" (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Secession from the Congo did not mean the same thing for Tshombe that it did for the oligarchs of SG and the Rockefeller cabal. For Tshombe, it was analogous to the American colonies declaring their independence from Great Britain. Tshombe had made the paramount mistake of crossing the elite. Pressure was brought to bear on the UN by senior American officials who were Rockefeller partisan. This resulted in a brutal assault on Katanga carried out by UN forces stationed in the Congo (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Both soldiers and civilians were rounded up at gunpoint and, sent to detention centers, then expelled from the country without a trial (Baker, 1993, p. 120). Others were murdered in cold blood. UPI correspondent Ray Moloney reported: "United Nations troops were firing from the hospital . . . I also saw U.N. troops fire on a Katangese ambulance as it tried to reach the twitching bodies of unarmed Katangese police who were ripped to pieces by U.N. machine-gun bullets after the

cease fire sounded" (Baker, 1993, pg. 120-121). A former Harvard fellow and professor of surgery at the University of Elizabethville sent the following telegram to the President of Harvard Faculty of Medicine: WE URGENTLY REQUEST YOUR INTERVENTION IN ORDER TO PUT A STOP TO THE KILLING OF CIVILIAN COLOURED AND EUROPEAN MEN AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN BY U.N. FORCES-WOMEN HAVE BEEN SHOT AT AND WOUNDED IN THEIR HOMES. WORKERS IN THE STREETS-STOP-SO HAVE RED CROSS SERVANTSSTOP-DURING LAST TWO DAYS JET PLANES HAVE BEEN SHOOTING AT CIVILIAN CARS DOWNTOWN AND IN THE COUNTRY-STOP-MORTARS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY SHELLING RESIDENTIAL AREAS-STOP-FOR THE SECOND TIME PRINCE LEOPOLD GENERAL AFRICAN HOSPITAL HAS BEEN SHELLED-STOP-PLEASE INFORM ACADEMIC AND MEDICAL WORLD AND PUBLIC OPINION AND INSIST ON U.N. GIVING UP SUCH REPULSIVE METHODS-STOP-IN THE NAME OF THE 46 CIVILIAN DOCTORS OF ELISABETHVILLE (Baker, 1903, pg. 1211-122). When Tshombe called for a cease-fire, UN Secretary General U Thant responded: "For us to stop short of our objectives at the present stage would be a serious setback for the U.N." (Baker, 1993, p. 122). The Katangan President was forced to surrender and was driven into exile. With all opposition neutralized, the Belgian and American elite began carving up the Congo. A settlement had been reached with Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henry Spaak at the 1963 Bilderberg meeting (Hough, 1997, p. 3). Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan and Standard Oil of Indiana took over the Tenke-Fungurume copper mining complex in the Congo (Hough, 1997, p. 3) Chase also became the Congo's lead banker (Hough, 1997, p. 3).

Conclusion The recurring theme throughout the case of the Congo is suppression and exploitation of the masses. None of the agreements or settlements reached by the elite led to a free Congolese population. Why is this the case? Because, in spite of their disagreements and differences, the oligarchs do agree upon one thing: the common people are children at best and cattle at worst. Those bluebloods who view us as children have decided it is best to keep us locked in the play pin or safely behind the baby gate for the duration of our lives. At no time do they intend to give us the key and it will take a long, arduous climb on our part to be free. Those bluebloods who view us as cattle have determined that we are to be periodically slaughtered and harvested. A revolt of the herd against the herdsmen may be the only hope for our survival.