Part 2 of 3
Czech translation here 
The Rivkin Project for Subverting French Youth
In 2010 when US ambassador Charles Rivkin invited a delegation of fellow Pacific Council on International Policy members to France, he had outlined a program for the Americanization of France that primarily involved the use of the Muslim minorities and the indoctrination of French youth with corporate globalist ideals. The slogan invoked was the common commitment of France and America historically to “equality.”
Wikileaks released the “confidential” program. It is entitled “Minority Engagement Strategy.” Here Rivkin outlines a program that is a flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation and, more profoundly, seeks to change the attitudes of generations of Muslim and French youth so that they merge into a new globalist synthesis; or what might be called a new humanity: Homo economicus, or what the financial analyst G. Pascal Zachary calls “The Global Me,” to achieve what Rivkin describes as the USA’s “national interest.”
Rivkin begins by stating that his embassy has created a “Minority Engagement Strategy” that is directed primarily at Muslims in France. Rivikin states as part of the program: “We will also integrate the efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our strategy.”
Rivkin is confident that France’s history of ideological liberalism “will serve us well as we implement the strategy outlined here . . . in which we press France . . .” Note the phrase: “press France.” America’s global agenda is linked by Rivkin to his blueprint for transforming France into “a thriving, inclusive French polity [which] will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.” The program will focus on the “elites” of the French and the Muslim communities, but will also involve a massive propaganda campaign directed at the “general population,” with a focus on youth.
At high levels US officials will place French officials on the defensive. The program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history. It means that the Pepsi/MTV generation of Americans will be formulating new definitions of French culture and writing new pages of French history to accord with globalist agendas. Towards this end: “. . . we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools.”
“Tactic Number Three” is entitled: “Launch Aggressive Youth Outreach.” As in other states targeted by the US State Department and their allies at the Soros network, Freedom House, Movement.org, National Endowment for Democracy, Solidarity Center, and so forth; disaffected youth are the focus for change. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to “engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for US objectives and values.” Can the intentions be stated any plainer? It is Americanization culturally and politically.
It is here that we can most easily get past the cant and clearly see what is behind the strategy: to form a generation “that leads to greater support for US objectives and values.” These “US objectives and values” will be sold to the French as French values on the basis of the bourgeois ideals of 1789 which continue to encumber French ideology on both Left and Right. They will be taught to think that they are upholding French traditions, rather than acting as agents of change according to “American values”: the values of the global village and the global shopping mall. A far-reaching program incorporating a variety of indoctrination methods is outlined:
To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France, employing new media, corporate partnerships, nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially invited US guests.
The program directed at youth in France is similar to that directed at the youth that formed the vanguard of the “velvet revolutions” from Eastern Europe to North Africa. Potential leaders are going to be taken up by the US State Department in France and cultivated to play a part in the future France of American design:
We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders.
As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain that the exchanges we support are inclusive.
We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.
Here Rivkin is advocated something beyond influencing Muslims in France. He is stating that a significant part of the program will be directed towards cultivating French youth, the potential leaders, in American ideals, under the façade of French ideals. The US State Department and their corporate allies and allied NGOs intend to “shape their values.” The globalist program for France is stated clearly enough to be the re-education of French youth. One would think that this is the most important role of the French Government, the Catholic Church and the family; the latter two in particular. American bureaucrats and their inane sidekicks recruited from professions are to formulate new “French values.”
As in the states that are chosen for “velvet revolutions” part of the strategy includes demarcating the political confines. As Hillary Clinton recently stated in regard to the type of state the US Establishment expects to emerge after Qadaffi, the new Libya should be an inclusive democracy, open to all opinions, as long as those opinions include a commitment to “equality” and “democracy”; in other words, there must be a new dispensation of freedom in Libya, so long as that freedom does not extend beyond America’s definition of it. And if someone oversteps the lines of acceptable democracy, American bombers are on standby. In the context of France, however, it is clear that the demarcation of French politics according to globalist dictates cannot include any elements of so-ccalled “xenophobia” (sic), which in today’s context would include a return to the grand politics of the De Gaulle era. Hence, “Tactic 5” states:
Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing best practices with young leaders in all fields, including young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will create or support training and exchange programs that teach the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local politicians.
Rivkin is outlining a program to train France’s future political and civic leaders. While the programs of US Government-backed NGOs, such as the National Endowment for Democracy — ostensibly designed to develop entire programs and strategies for political parties in “emerging democracies,” such as the states of the ex-Soviet bloc — can be rationalized by way of a lack of a heritage of liberal-democratic party politics, the same rationale can hardly be used to justify America’s interference in France’s party politics.
Towards this end Rivkin states that the 1,000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils: “We will also provide tools for teaching tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university students who teach English in French schools every year.”
The wide-ranging program will be co-ordinated by the “Minority Working Group” in “tandem” with the “Youth Outreach Initiative.” One of the problems monitored by the Group will be the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalization.
Rivkin clarifies the subversive nature of the program when stating: “While we could never claim credit for these positive developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out activities, described above, that prod, urge, and stimulate movement in the right direction.”
What would the reaction be if the French Government through its Embassy in Washington undertook a program to radically change the USA in accordance with “French national interests,” inculcating through an “aggressive outreach program” focusing on youth, “French ideals” under the guise of “American ideals on human rights.” What would be the response of the US Administration if it was found that the French Government were trying to influence the attitudes also of Afro-Americans, American-Indians, and Latinos? What would be the official US reaction if it was found that French language educators in American schools and colleges were trying to inculcate American pupils with ideas in the service of French interests?
The hypothetical reaction can be deduced from the US response to the “Soviet conspiracy” when Senate and Congressional committees were set up to investigate anyone even vaguely associated with the USSR. So what’s different? The USA perpetrates a subversive strategy in the interests of it globalist cooperate elite, instead of in the interests of the USSR or communism. It is not as though the USA has had much of a cultural heritage that it can present itself to any European nation, let alone France, as the paragon of good taste and artistic refinement upon which a national identity can be constructed. It this matter, it is a case of deconstruction.
1. C. Rivkin, “Minority Engagement Report,” US Embassy, Paris, http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2010/01/10PARIS58.html 
2. G. Pascal Zachary, The Global Me: Why Nations will succeed or Fail in the Next Generation (New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin, 2000).
4. K. R. Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/