Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Just a drive-by remark : I presumed that there must be something problematic about the donors to the Albert Einstein outfit. So I visited the Sourcewatch links, and find them completely unobjectionable.  Perhaps you could clarify why you find the institute's funding objectionable? (leaving aside the question of co-operation with US government agencies, which I haven't looked at yet)

Donors 200-2004 :

Another remark :

you have to consider what would happen if a hypothetical progressive international movement began running similar campaigns in the West, supplying:

    * Published and freely distributed copies of material about practical civil disobedience and revolution
    * Formal military consultancy and training
    * Cash funding
    * Practical support in the form of books, t-shirts, stickers, and so on. (Which might seem trivial, but these items turn out to be game changers.)

How many governments in the West would be happy with this kind of interference? How many would consider it democratic?

An interesting illustration of your state of mind. Certainly, "formal military consultancy and training" is objectionable. I'd be interested to know what your objection is to the other three. Perhaps we could illustrate the question with concrete examples.

For my part, I'm in favour of an open and transparent society where national governments do not have the means or the right to interdict civil society organising on a transnational basis. What about you?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:33:59 AM EST
Well yes, apart from IRI, NED and the others in the funding history, and also in Helvey's own testimony that he was sponsored by IRI for his work in Kosovo, there's no problem with the funding at all. Nor with the fact that a former investment shark on the Advisory Board of Cato is a Principal and also involved in funding.

As for "my state of mind" - considering that the UK and US authorities have a proven track record of infiltrating "dangerous" groups, including deadly and lethal climate protestors who dress up as clowns, one can only wonder the reaction would be if protestors suddenly found a funding source worth a few million dollars, staffed by PR experts, consultants with military experience, and academics promoting civil disobedience techniques.

They might shrug and say "meh" - but I think it's reasonable to doubt that.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 08:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another point, along this line of thought, is that If the objective is to reduce the amount of blood shed around the world (without necessarily eliminating it), I see no reason why it would be a bad thing for the DOD to adopt tactics a bit more along the lines advocated by Sharp, as opposed to the usual squad of assassins. Literal or literary.

State of mind:
As one travels across an 83-year long arc of life, the view probably changed. Time might disperse the communal fog of a national obsession with anticommunism, and perhaps reveal the need for another focus, another objective less bloody, more in tune with human needs, human compassion.

Just speculating.

In my case, I listened in rapt attention to the broadcasts of "I Led Three Lives". It took Viet Nam, and a bit of tear gas to clear my vision.
 It was, in fact, not until I began reading ET and such as Naomi Kline that the relationships among the Chicago School, Ayn Rand, Cheney and Rummy, and the rouges' gallery began to clarify a bit.

Change is good.
Certainty is death. Like taxes.
-- Unless you're a major campaign contributor corporation    

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 12:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by contributing to the Devil's political funding?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 10:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another point, along this line of thought, is that If the objective is to reduce the amount of blood shed around the world (without necessarily eliminating it), I see no reason why it would be a bad thing for the DOD to adopt tactics a bit more along the lines advocated by Sharp, as opposed to the usual squad of assassins. Literal or literary.

I know of no better co-option than the First Earth Battalion.


THE NEW EARTH ARMY VISION
The legends of lifeforce living

The New Earth Army heralds the coming of the soldiers of the biosphere, the warriors of wilderness, and the champions of life force living. As national security gives way to Natural Security and the global webocracy serves all people more democratically than ever before the soldiers of the rainbow come forward as servants of the BIOSPHERE from their newly created global villages where they eat fresh from the land and care for all the sources of clean water.

Founder, Lt Col. Jim Alexander hung around the new agers and came up with this program for the US Army. Warrior monks indeed.

These are the people who were "lampooned?" in Men Who Stare At Goats, which i haven't seen, though i know some of the people it's about.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 12:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series