Ivy Ledbetter Lee and a Conspiracy Enquiry
72He was a seemingly ubiquitous lover of injustice, corruption, oppression, and tyranny. But, just who was Ivy Ledbetter Lee, and how was he able to have such an enormously terrific impact on today’s contemporary world?
If a million Americans, spoken to at random, were asked about him, however, it is reasonably guessed that only 0.001% might know something about this mainly obscure person of the past.
Few, if any, Americans know much, if anything, about Ivy Ledbetter Lee; if one were to do studies or research on the specific subject of public relations, then it would be fairly hard not to come across his name, sooner or later. Nonetheless, it is not a name that just immediately or quickly conjures up any momentous and highly important historical consequences and activities directly and firmly associated with his name.
He had faded, easily, from the consciousness of the 20th century; while, for instance, a million times more people, in the early 21st century, would instantly know the name of, say, Babe Ruth, almost nobody, in contrast, could quickly call to mind a Mr. Ivy Lee.
If just a simple search on the internet is done, furthermore, very little can be fruitfully gained from that kind of general perusal; this is, manifestly, regarding just how truly significant and influential this man was in so clearly major terms of the important international aspects of politics, economics, commerce, propaganda, history, and ideology of the early 20th century (at a minimum).
Public-Relations Techniques Gone Mad
Lee had been an enthusiastic, ubiquitous supporter and promoter, in turn, of Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany; furthermore, it is logically concluded that, had he lived past 1934 (when he died), he would have then easily embraced and loyally worked for yet other tyrannies, as faithfully and efficiently, dedicatedly and tenaciously, as he could.
Not unexpectedly, one can easily note, for those who study conspiracies and conspirators, this fellow is, substantively, worth the good effort to get to know. Therefore, what he had actually represented needs to be put into a larger appropriate context, as to the historical realities of his era and, in addition, what had developed from his past actions.
He was, it needs to be said, a true product of the secularization and modernization of society and culture that had occurred among the intellectual elite, the technocratic superiors, who do think of themselves as being highly qualified to lead and mold and direct the course of modern civilization.
Acting with the modernist confusion of Rationalism with being rational thought, Lee was very much a modern man, a product of then contemporary society and culture, who thought of himself as a “moral” man, in his own mind.
But, as the philosopher Leo Strauss has interestingly noted, the truth is that modern morality’s highest estimation of moral right matches only roughly the basic minimum of classical morality’s higher assessment of moral right.
Thus, quite often both context and content are lost, through nominalism in thought, when an actor on the world stage, such as surely was this son of a Methodist minister, confused and confounded what may have been his (best) intentions with the (duplicitous, at a minimum) consequences of his interests.
Though his certainly prolific efforts for the Soviet Union and the Third Reich are, at least, slightly known versus all that he both willingly and extensively did on their behalf, Lee’s exertions for Fascist Italy are rarely, if ever, covered to any degree of true substance. To this significant point that is really being made and pushed heartily, therefore, attempting to set about correctly putting all the much needed pieces of the historical puzzle together would then, substantially, rewrite the history of most of the 20th century.
Someday, it is hoped, therefore, that informed people will want to connect the dotted lines; this is so surely for finding out about the larger and hidden picture that would be revealed amazingly as to all the interconnections and many interrelationships that both had existed back then and, moreover, still do continue today, meaning as to international realities.
In short, the historically urgent point is, explicitly, made here that an important investigatory book about Lee and his extraordinary strivings, done on the behalf of obviously tyrannous regimes, needs to be now properly written, meaning as an extremely useful expose; it would, reflexively, raise many insightful and critical, fruitful and astute, questions that have never ever been truly adequately answered nor, for that matter, is it so fairly likely that requisite and profitable answers will be actually forthcoming. Or, is it all to be simply dismissed as just so much conspiratorial nonsense?
Lee, as is publicly known, had definite links, e. g., to the Rockefeller family and many other importantly powerful people/interests, I. G. Farben, and the Council on Foreign Relations, of which he was, in fact, one of the founders; all of the interesting implications, complications, interrelations, and ramifications were, to put it so rather mildly, rather astounding.
His peculiar sense of very dedicated professionalism, in the surely Machiavellian service of many morally reprehensible regimes, businesses, and assorted institutions, is so frightening and shocking to observe, unless, of course, the observer or commentator shares the morally nominalist or subjectivist values involved, (though he seems to, oddly, have had some kind of Social Gospel sympathies, in his theologically opposing the idea of business competition).
Then, Lee only is depicted as a fairly exemplary figure, upon the past world stage, who had positively perfected concepts of many modern public-relations (PR) techniques significantly toward stratospheric heights of energetic and sophisticated endeavor. But, just what the heck (not to use another four-letter word pertaining to fornication) does that really mean?
Disinterested Professional or Ardent Propagandist?
For those truly interested, much basic and usually routine information can, of course, be quickly gained by checking out various cognate websites (see: Bibliography to this article), especially inclusive of the noting of the collection of his papers, at the Princeton University Library, among many such introductory sources for doing some merely core investigation.
But, since the thoroughly intrigued reader can so readily go, thus, elsewhere, for then getting the preparatory or foundational facts, data, and knowledge involved, this will not, therefore, be the chosen subject of this present article.
What will be covered philosophically concerns the notable what and why of those interesting matters not covered elsewhere that deal, intensively, with greatly critical issues that have not yet been properly addressed. In other words, his explicitly public life, e. g., as just a simple PR man (or such other lesser matters) is not to be found here. A kind of parallel attempt at providing a rough analogy may be useful for some illustrative purposes.
For those who may be familiar, for instance, with such major books of historical fiction as Winds of War and War and Remembrance, Lee essentially was, more or less, a real-life version of the kind of character represented by Pug Henry, as is well depicted in those cited novels.
And yet, the vast majority of (American) history books covering, say, 1900 to 1940, do not generally mention him and, moreover, this is, increasingly, the fundamental case for most textbooks as the 20th century came to a close and, thus, into the present century, of course. His “private life,” meaning trying to find out about what really happened behind the scenes, is of more greater importance in set terms of properly knowing the things he significantly did that had, in fact, certain tremendous consequences for millions of human lives.
He is verily becoming, deliberately it is contended, a much historically forgotten man who will be then relegated, eventually, to just a mere footnote, if ever mentioned at all, in extremely larger historical works or compilations. His historical impact is being increasingly minimized. This is, it is contended, both unfortunate and devious, much like the highly effective liberal censorship of silence.
As expected, his ardent defenders would insist, basically, that he was a consummate professional who, conscientiously and rigorously, demonstrated his professionalism by adjusting his keen and remarkable, sharp and marketable, abilities and competencies to meet various exigencies and situations in the modern world.
These were deemed necessary according, of course, to Lee’s particular point of view, which was the acknowledgement of variable and varied interrelationships revolving around the support of dynamic internationalism versus the often alleged evils, e. g., of American insularity or isolationism; this is then perceived, therefore, as the genuinely best approach to properly handling world affairs.
The modernist orientations and progressive values of efficiency and effectiveness were to, thus, ever logically trump any archaic considerations of old-fashioned morality, ethics, and any other such unneeded traditional views pertaining to general human affairs, especially when put on an appropriate international scale of valuation and evaluation.
Lee, therefore, creatively demonstrated an apt sense of presumed political sophistication, and internationalist flexibility and adaptability by innovatively working with either Nazi, Communist, or Fascist regimes, with a rather wise and magisterial dexterity, that any truly dedicated modernists or progressives ought to, for that reason, axiomatically accept and approve of as being simply realistic.
As a product of the Progressive Era, he was, evidently, open minded and completely free from ideological bigotries or prejudices commonly found in small minds not used, by definition, to seeing the greater goals or higher purposes involved in conducting world affairs.
Of course, those who had horribly died, in any of the various Nazi, Communist, or Fascist death camps, probably, one rationally assumes, would have disagreed most strongly with this certain kind of neutrally-expressed sentiment or thought. His alleged abilities and capabilities, qualities and capacities, would not always have been universally appreciated.
Equally, liberals and leftists typically do not understand that the (demonic) lust for power, though often disguised by useful ideological rhetoric (self-delusion) to the contrary, can be, in fact, as thoroughly corrupting, as is the lust for money or anything else, for that matter.
People have died, moreover, from much misplaced pseudo-humanitarian or quasi-altruistic motives claimed often by, for instance, the enraged advocates of Leftist revolution, inclusive of Communism, Nazism, and Fascism, all, in short, of (essential) totalitarianism, by whatever name.
Most likely, furthermore, the tens upon tens of millions who were exterminated, butchered, savaged, raped, tortured, poisoned, etc. by these ideological systems of organized brutality, totalitarian efforts, would have not had any good words for Lee and his explicitly modernist orientation, which is, thus, so notably respectful of his cold professionalism qua PR-specialist attitude.
He used his superior PR skills and abilities to make evil respectable (e. g., promotion of American recognition of the Soviet Union) and, furthermore, had created the additional and necessary intellectual parameters for, also, normalizing the gross abnormality, fundamental political aberration, of totalitarianism qua modernization.
And yet, even today’s world is, in many clear ways, a set definite product of the type of thinking greatly exemplified by Lee and his colleagues, in many fields of endeavor, who have vibrantly (or excessively) promoted efforts at modernization throughout the globe; this is certainly seen, explicitly, in overt terms of their very much wanted globalization of economic, political, social, and other interests, as with, of course, the truly dedicated proliferation of innumerable multinational corporations on a grand scale; and many do, e.g., operate wondrously in Red China, which still has active concentration camps, by the way.
Such multinational corporations are, e. g., quite notorious for their various cooperative and interactive agreements with many tyrannous regimes and, of course, often nefarious interrelated global business interests around the world. It is a world, thus, that Lee would have heartily approved of and would have encouraged, moreover, even more strongly, if at all possible.
And, such pertains most especially to any sophisticated contempt for any free, constitutional, republican government qua governance in a rather marked preference for manifestly despotic regimes or, at least, those that are profoundly or solidly antidemocratic or, perhaps, simply autocratic systems of oppression.
But, much more is involved at a deeper level of thought, especially as it pertains to what the progressive secularization of society and culture has brought about, over the last few centuries, concerning various ideological excesses. The broad movement from a theocentric toward an anthropocentric civilization has witnessed the excessive horrors, e. g., of the 20th century with its secularist-humanist explosions of earthly messianic faiths: Communism, Nazism, and Fascism promising temporal salvation qua Utopia.
It is, of course, all certainly part of the broadly Leftist ideological lust for power that was seen excessively exercised (Stalinist Russia, Maoist China) in the past century, and continues, as with Obama and his Administration on a lesser scale, into the 21st century.
As Malcolm Muggeridge and others had correctly and theologically understood, the spiritually revolting situation, the Nietzschean-inspired attempt, to insanely deny the rights of God, in preference for the celebrated rights of Man, leads invariably to Hell, not Heaven on earth; the modernist project, finally, is to completely attempt to live without God; the postmodernist effort is, in that more progressive frame of mind, to go even further by denying the very existence of truth itself.
Thus, observed secularization logically produces, in its ultimate result, a moral sterilization of human consciousness and its attendant modernist conscience, which simply advances, most often, into a supine postmodernist predisposition to blandly deny the existence of evil itself.
People, thus, in the supposedly advanced countries of the Western world, as is so well known, can then be legally prosecuted and even imprisoned for, e. g., killing animals, while abortion-on-demand, infanticide, euthanasia, and, in some instances, even suicide is permitted to legally exist under protection of the State.
Nihilism, consequently, has, thence, become the highest form, in effect, of most of dominant contemporary morality to be so generally found inhabiting willingly the now postmodern world, with the too often nominalist reification of truth notwithstanding.
Quite frankly, therefore, the Devil himself has PR agencies, as with the thinking of Lee, readily active everywhere on earth, inclusive of, e. g., many political parties in the Western world. And, even Muslim-inspired terrorism against the West still affirms this reality forcefully with its own participation in nihilism.
Conclusion
So, it is reasonably thought best that Mr. Lee not simply then fade into an undeserved obscurity; this is, principally, concerning the shocking magnitude of those past exploits of his that had a great impact upon the course of the past 20th century; in addition, one can say, without much hesitation, there are still various and sundry reverberations, pertaining to various aspects of Lee’s significantly questionable doings, that can still be truly felt regarding any acts of moral neutrality that, e. g., may come to favor dictatorships, past, present, or those surely yet to come.
Man’s inhumanity against his fellow human beings is not, therefore, easily assuaged by any modernist assumptions of advanced cosmopolitanism, hyper-sophistication, and progressive professionalism.
This substantively includes, of course, what may covertly become the fine line of a mere distinction without a difference between propaganda and public relations, on a grand scale of endeavor, for either major public bodies or entire regimes, courtesy of all those, of course, who may think like an Ivy Ledbetter Lee.
Bibliography
Jules Abels, The Rockefeller Billions.
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope.
William P. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History.
Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution.
“ “ , Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ivy_Lee
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?id=ark:/88435/m039k489x
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall01/Jones/lee.html
http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/readings/3eras2x.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Lee
