Think Tanks | Policy Institutes - Paul Labarique Article, 2004

ministry of tokyo Paul Labarique SOURCE http://www.voltairenet.org/article30072.html ARCHIVE http://archive.is/lVMfV The Manhattan Institute, Neoconservatives’s Lab by Paul Labarique Antony Fisher founded 90 institutes around the world with the purpose of disseminating libertarian ideas. One of them is the Manhattan Institute of New York, whose objective is to [comment:  word missing] taboos. The “neoconservative Revolution” promoted by the institution intended to eliminate the counterculture of the 60’s and feminism, but above all, to destroy social services and get African-Americans and poor people out of the big cities. The speeches on modern intolerance of African-Americans inadaptability, the “zero tolerance” on improper social behavior and “compassion-based-faith” were written by members of the Manhattan Institute. Republican politicians of the Eastern coast like Rudolf Giuliani were also the Institute’s creation. Voltaire Network | 15 September 2004 British multimillionaire Antony Fisher, born in 1915, was one of the most influential actors in the rise of libertarian think tanks (a usually political center of research, propaganda and spreading of ideas) during the second half of the XX century. Fond reader of Friedrich von Hayek [1] since 1945, he met him that year and the economist convinced him of the need to create a think tank network to support the project on society’s changes. Thanks to his huge fortune and the network he had created in Mont Pelerin, Fisher worked on this. In 1955, along with Ralph Harris, he founded the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. In 1977, and with the help of the eminent American lawyer William Casey, who would become later CIA director [2], he founded the International Center for Economic Policy Studies (ICEPS) in New York. According to Loic Wacquant, both men wanted the Institute «to apply the principles of the market economy to social problems» [3]. At the same time, Sir. Antony Fisher opened an institution to advise and finance the libertarians of the world so that they could found similar think tanks in their own countries. The International Institute for Research engendered the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 1980 and the International Policy Network in 2001. In about 30 years, Fisher founded 90 research centers in 39 countries [IMAGE] William Casey ICEPS’s [comment:  International Center for Economic Policy Studies (New York)] board of directors included Lewl Lehrman [4], Irving Bristol [5], Ed Feulner [6] and William Casey. Under the influence of Charles H. Brunie [7] and William Hammet, who would become President of this think tank at the beginning of the 1980s, the ICEPS changed its name and its purpose. By becoming the Manhattan Institute, its main target was the intellectual elites of New York who had to be convinced of the goodness of Reagan’s policies. Indeed, America was working on the future “conservative revolution” while democratic President Jimmy Carter was living his final hours at the White House. Neoconservatives under Ronald Reagan [8] and George H. W. Bush, who were about to substitute him, were trying to develop an ideological arsenal to legitimate the desired destruction of the welfare state. The Manhattan Institute’s role was to officially provide this liberal-conservative ideology which was based on curious mixture of pseudo economic and sociological anticipations, as was reflected in one of the first works published by the Institute signed by George Gilder. This former Henry Kissinger’s student at Harvard wrote several speeches for well-known political republican personalities such as Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney and Richard Nixon. In the 1970s he suddenly drew his attention to the causes of poverty and richness in the U.S. Then, in 1972, he published Sexual Suicide where he explained that women’s liberation would lead to the end of the human race. According to him, unmarried men were essentially unstructured and those who did not follow a “traditional” sexual practice were deviant. [comment:  a number of post-WWII (i) social changes & (ii) factors particular to (and heavily promoted in) the capitalist West (eg women driven into the workforce); the capitalist attack on a number of European social traditions and norms; the promotion of the 'feminist' ad-man mythical female supremacy 'carrot', over the span of vital decades during which European birthrates dwindled; and the wide availability of contraception and abortion (along with 'no fault' divorce and the assault on the the European male (commonly referred to as the 'white man'), via the 'feminist' (and other) ideological deconstruction & indoctrination vehicle (among numerous other associated factors), have all led to the DEADLY DECLINE in EUROPEAN BIRTHRATES - so much so that indigenous GERMANY has been in a demographic DEATH SPIRAL *for decades*.  The European demographic in United States is set to become a MINORITY in their own homeland in the near future; Canada is likewise replacing their European population with mass immigration from third world regions, and this is a program that has been in effect in ALL European established (Western) capitalist nations, on the basis that this is advantageous for the ECONOMY and is promoted as  (a) 'diversity' and (b) aliens economically intended to support what is held out as the DYING OUT EUROPEANS, who apparently failed to reproduce in sufficient numbers (while 'having it all'):  and thus, having subsequently failed to meet the DEMANDS of the GLOBAL ECONOMY and its economists, the Europeans, will disappear from the nations that their forefathers founded because the economists and the powers that be consider the GLOBAL ECONOMY and ECONOMIC GROWTH (rather than securing a nation for an indigenous or founding people of a nation) of paramount importance in a capitalist system, where the PEOPLE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE and the nation is consigned to history.  Therefore, these conservative think tanks had some point in terms of the commentary on what is sold as 'feminism', whatever their motives were originally. ] In Visible Man, published in 1978, Gilder affirmed that there was no racism in the American society, that it was a “post-racist” society and the worst enemy an African-American could have was himself due to his way of living, his dispersed family and his «ghetto image». This rhetoric supported his allegation on federal subsidies as a tool for perpetuating a society in which African-American “lived a lost life while waiting for the governmental green checks” [9]. This was the type of discourse the Manhattan Institute was trying to promote. So, in 1981 George Gilder was given a scholarship at the Smith Richardson Foundation [10] through the Manhattan Institute to write Wealth and Poverty where he explained his extreme right-wing theories. Based on what he said, the cause of American misery could be found in «the family anarchy of the poor living in the inner city» which was favored by the social assistance whose only effects were «undermining the working desires, the patriarchal family and the religious fervor which were the three reins of prosperity» [11]. Thanks to the support of the Manhattan Institute, the extremely liberal press did welcome the book and even The Economist wrote an article titled “Blessed those who make money”. Quickly, the book became a best-seller, although its main achievement was that it became Ronald Reagan’s most important book. According to study made on his speeches, George Gilder was the former American President’s most quoted alive author. [IMAGE] George Gilder The Manhattan Institute repeated the experience the following year. While Ronald Reagan was successfully implementing its extremely liberal conservative revolution, the think tank where George Gilder was hosting a seminar, was looking for a new promoter of its racial-economic theories. It chose an unknown university student named Charles Murray who had sent one of his articles to Irving Kristoll. Kristoll, interested in the demagogic style of the text, contacted Michael Joyce, President of Olin Foundation, and tried to raise funds to transform the article into a book. William Hammet, who had become President of the Manhattan Institute, agreed to hire Murray. According to an internal memo written by him, «every generation produces a number of books with a lasting impact, books that change the basic ideas about the way the world function (or should function...). Charles Murray’s Losing Ground could be one of these books and in that case it would change the debate of what may be the most important political matter of our time: the modern welfare state» [12]. Consequently, the institute paid the author 30 000 dollars and two years to work in peace. Thus, in 1984 he published Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 which according to Loic Wacquant «appeared in the right moment to in a pseudoscientific way approve the strong cancellation of social commitments carried out by the Republican government (with the support of the democratic majority of the Congress)». The explanation was simple: «the excessive generosity of the policies to assist the poor was to be blamed for the increase of poverty in the U.S. because they favored inactivity and the moral degeneration of popular classes, especially the “illegitimate” unions as the main cause of every social problem in modern societies, including ‘urban violence’» [13]. Despite a huge number of obvious nonsense and empirical mistakes pointed out by sociologist Christopher Jencks, economist Robert Greenstein and even Nobel Prize James Tobin [14], the media turned the pamphlet into a “classic” and made it the central issue on the debates about social assistance in the U.S. On its side, the Manhattan Institute made an enormous promotion of the book: William Hammet sent 700 copies to journalists, political and “university” personalities in America and hired an expert on public relations to turn the unknown Charles Murray into a “media-related phenomenon”. Its purpose was not selling the book but made it the core of every political debate. Months later, the Institute held a symposium on Losing Ground whose participants,whether they were journalists, public policies experts or social sciences specialists, received between 500 and 1500 dollars. Charles Murray’s career had begun. In 1994 he published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, [15] an «authentic treatise on scientific racism (...) which affirmed that class and racial inequalities in the U.S. reflected the individual differences of ‘cognitive capacity’» [16]. He wrote that the intelligence quotient (IQ), genetically inherited, would be then the leading factor for social success, the capacity to maintain marriage, for properly educating children and being a good citizen: «the most intelligent children of every social class, including the poorest ones, quickly learned how the State functioned and were more capable of informing themselves and debating political matters than participating in them». On the other hand, a low IQ increased the possibilities of committing a crime, and therefore, the possibility of being imprisoned. So, a person is not a criminal due to his deprivation but to his moral and mental depravation. This statement led to two conclusions: first, the reason why ethnic minorities were the majority of prisoners was due to their low IQs and not to the inequalities of the American society. Second, «the State had to stop intervening in social life by reducing ‘natural’ inequalities or it would make things even worse by perpetuating ‘the aberrations of the egalitarian ideal of the French Revolution’ because ‘Jacobites, or Leninists, egalitarian tyrannies were worst than non humanitarian because they were inhumane» [17]. [IMAGE] Charles Murray But this time, Charles Murray went too far and the Manhattan Institute refused to join the project, though this did not mean it was not interested in the debate. Then, Murray sought refuge in the American Enterprise Institute, with Irving Kristoll’s blessing. In 1994, some time after the publication of his book, the think tank hosted a dinner to honor Murray and his last work. When he was given the floor, he explained the 15 differences between African Americans and whites’ IQs and criticized the positive discrimination programs. The Manhattan Institute then drew its attention to the “urban violence” issue by popularizing for the first time the “broken windows” questionable doctrine, formulated in 1982 by James Q. Wilson, the theorist of conservative criminology, and George Kelling in an article published by the Atlantic Monthly [18]. According to the authors, by fighting minor disorders (currently known as “incivilities”) great criminal pathologies were reduced. This thesis got the attention of New York’s attorney, Rudolf Giuliani who, as a result, attended a conference hosted by the Manhattan Institute by the mid 1990s. The main topic of the conference was “the sacred character of public spaces” as indispensable for public life for the “disorder” of poor classes was, by nature, a fertile terrain for “crime”. The future mayor of New York, who has lost municipal elections to democrat African-American David Dinkins, found there the topics for his victorious campaign of 1993. The “zero tolerance” doctrine was born out of this thesis which affirmed that any misdemeanor had to be sanctioned; otherwise, the minor offender would become a criminal sooner or later. In real life, this doctrine was a relentless hunting of minor offenders and a policy to maintain beggars and homeless in poor neighborhoods, out of the big city. This program of Giuliani was welcomed by New York middle and upper classes, the true voters, and was quite published by City Journal, the new magazine of the Manhattan Institute. It was actually the program that gave Giuliani his victory. However, “zero tolerance” meant giving up a fair proportion between the misdemeanor and the means to repress it. Therefore, the doctrine provoked a spiral of public violence that affected individual liberties. Once in power, Giuliani applied the elaborated ideological arsenal designed, in part, by the Manhattan Institute. He was assisted by William Bratton, the man in charge of the security of New York’s metro, later appointed chief of municipal police [19]. In five years only, New York Police’s budget was increased 40%, amounting to 2 600 million dollars. The city hired also 12 000 new policemen whereas social services lost a third of its budget and 8 000 employees. This spectacular deployment of resources to repress every infraction (such as the use of helicopters and several police cars to stop and fine a driver for a minor offense) left memories on people’ minds but kept the police away from real crimes. The most amazing thing was that the result of this policy was less impressive than the arsenal it demanded. By comparing New York to San Diego which used only its “local police”, we could find out that «between 1993 and 1996, Californian metropolis showed a decrease in crimes similar to New York’s but with an increase of only 6% of its police force. The number of arrests dropped 15% in three years in San Diego whereas in New York it increased 24%, amounting 314 292 arrested people in 1996 (...) finally, the number of complaints against the police reduced 10% in the Pacific Coast whereas in Giuliani’s city» it increased 60%.  [comment:  without seeing how the statistics are categorised etc, there is no telling how the respective statistics were compiled.  It is worth noting that govt is good at hiding facts, by creative classification of stats - as is motivated to do so for both political and ideological reasons.] This distrust of New York’s population, especially among African-American, against its own police revealed the existence of a “social war” atmosphere as a result of the “zero tolerance” doctrine. But these negative results did not prevent its followers from exporting the New York model to the whole world. Once William Bratton was fired by the Mayor of the city -it seemed that Bratton overshadowed Giuliani- he became a consultant of the Manhattan Institute and of several cities around the world. During the 1990s, the authors of the Manhattan Institute continued developing their neo-conservative ideology based on ethnocentric and racial prejudices, especially on the superiority of the white Americans way of life. Their discourse was similar to those of numerous journalists and French experts of the time on the “unassimilation” of Islam and the “invasion” threat immigration represented. In the U.S., African-American and Latino populations have been the most attacked ones.   [comment:  the writer may have a left-wing take on the issues that arise from unique social and criminal problems pertaining to various non-European demographics, which ought to be dealt with in line with specific issues that attach to those populations, rather than authorities taking the approach that doing so is 'inequitable', per the leftist and 'progressive' viewpoint.  Whatever the fashionable ideology of the day, all things are not equal and should be dealt with according to logic - rather than (politicised & manipulated) emotion and the rush on preservation of mere ideas / prevailing ideology (in my opinion). ] Abigail Thernstrom, member of the Manhattan Institute, coauthored with her husband, Harvard professor Stephan Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible [20], a book on the disastrous effects of positive discrimination. It was financed by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and Carthage Foundation. Another member of the Manhattan Institute, Tamar Jacoby, wrote about the futility of American integration in Someone Else’s House: America Unfulfilled Struggle for Integration, a book financed by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Joyce Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation. In 1993, Myron Magnet blamed in The Dream and Nightmare the counterculture of the 1960s for the creation of the urban underclass [21]. The Manhattan Institute financial sources are varied but funds usually come from even more reactionary hypothetically philanthropic organizations [22], mainly the Olin Foundation [23]. Its influence is quite notable in Washington where this think tank is an ideological guarantee and a mentor of ideas. Thanks to its promoting abilities, the Manhattan Institute prepares the media and the public opinion for extremely liberal and socially retrograded thesis. The White House pays attention to its theories on social matters and George W. Bush asked John J. Diulio Jr. and Stephen Goldsmith, both members of the Manhattan Institute, to apply one of the ideas the Institute has defended for a long time, that is, the elimination of the commitments of the State on social work and their transfer to religious orders. This doctrine was recently brought back by influential Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute, in a work titled What Makes Charity Work? A Century of Public and Private Philanthropy published in 2001. This book defended a system of social assistance based on charity and not on solidarity by saying that it would be more effective, cheaper and above all, more magnanimous. This was a “compassionate program” the Bush Administration quickly implemented when it took power and after the opening of a Faith Initiative Office [24] in the White House. By promoting the reduction of the State, the Manhattan Institute has shown the true image of libertarianism while justifying the elimination of the commitments of the State in social matters and its expansion of repression.  [comment:  social assistance provided by charity versus state responsibility is a stupid idea.  But maintaining a welfare state or a state welfare system is inherently a battle in (a) a capitalist system, in which power rests with capital; and class 'solidarity' is likely even more difficult to maintain in (b) a non-homogeneous state (a state with a diverse racial make-up), I would think, as a diverse demographic has diverse characteristics (and needs), instead of the bonds of similarity and of social 'solidarity' of a homogeneous class.   ] Paul Labarique SOURCE http://www.voltairenet.org/article30072.html ARCHIVE http://archive.is/lVMfV ALL of the above general principles apply to capitalist-funded think tanks (or policy institutes), be it funded by wealthy, ostensibly 'philanthropic', individuals; funded by foundations or corporations; that are founded to promote and to echo 'progressive', socially Marxist, yet capitalist serving, pseudo 'left' ideology (eg. the many projects of billionaire George Soros and others like him). More on think tanks here. Very interesting article.  The list of source material relied on by the author is available at the link to the article.

WikiLeaks: Google & Al-Jazeera Encouraged Civil War In Syria

Article SOURCE http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ WikiLeaks: Google & Al-Jazeera Encouraged Civil War In Syria Together with Al-Jazeera, Google developed a tool to track defections in Syria, hoping to encourage more former Assad allies to join the civil war. By Mint Press News Desk | March 29, 2016  MENLO PARK, California — Tech giant Google collaborated with Al-Jazeera to develop an interactive online tool to encourage defections during the Syrian civil war, according to emails in WikiLeaks’ archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails.  [Comment:  Al-Jazeera Qatar state & partial Thani ruling family funding] “Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from,” wrote Jared Cohen, the founder and director of Google Ideas, of the proposed online tool in a July 25, 2012 email sent to Jacob J. Sullivan, deputy secretary of state under Clinton. “Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.” “We believe this can have an important impact,” Cohen added. The archive reveals that Sullivan forwarded the email onto Clinton, adding, “This is a pretty cool idea.” Clinton, in turn, sent it to an assistant with instructions for the email to be printed. In his email, Cohen revealed that Google Ideas was collaborating with Al-Jazeera, which published the tracker in English and Arabic shortly after Cohen’s email was sent. Although it was offline when this report was written, an internal analysis by Google called it “one of the most viewed visualizations on their site” and the tool later won an Online Media Award for the TV news network based in Doha, Qatar. Google Ideas, which was renamed Jigsaw in a major company reorganization last year, is a think tank which maintains close ties to the State Department, according to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in his 2014 book “When Google Met WikiLeaks.” [here] Before leading Google Ideas, Cohen served at the State Department from 2006 to 2010 under Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Clinton. Assange wrote: “It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a ‘think/do tank’ based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.” An op-ed published on Saturday by RT criticizes Western media for largely ignoring the story of collaboration between Al-Jazeera, Google, and the State Department, although a few mainstream sites like U.K.’s The Independent did cover the story. Michael William Lebron, a media analyst that publishes under the name “Lionel,” told RT: “I don’t expect a reaction from Western media because Western media hasn’t even read this, has no idea about this … But can you imagine if the same set of facts were involved with the different countries, different corporations around the world depending upon your frame of reference. This would either be an outrage or ‘well, maybe this is a delightful and benign cooperation, an independent tech giant … and all for the common good of liberty’ and whatever. It depends upon your perspective.” http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ Other "Clinton emails leak – on Syria, Regime Change & Other" LINK | Hakawi ---------------------- ---------------------- Book:  'When Google Met WikiLeaks' ---------------------- ---------------------- LINK | Hillary Clinton E-Mail Archive WikiLeaks COMMENT There's nothing 'benign' about the American state and American corporate aggression against the sovereign state  of Syria and Syria's government:  in particular its leader, Bashar al-Assad.  Actors who wish to further Saudi, Gulf oil states, Israeli and allied American and Western corporate and geopolitical interests have been involved in the concerted attack on Syria by proxy and by every other means possible (for years now), in order to attack not only Syria, but ultimately Syria's ally, Iran, which the American camp and its followers (especially the powerful pro Israeli camp) have been targeting with sanctions (to weaken) and lobbying hard to attack for years now. Libya sanctions were lifted in 2003, just as the Iran sanctions have recently been lifted. It took the Western alliance 8 years to set up opposition in the Libya and to attack Libya in 2011, in the guise of 'protecting' the civilians:  a population that was then pitched into civil war that still continues. We know that these parties are also not averse to civil war or to sectarian war in Syria, just as they weren't in Iraq or in Libya, as their intentions are *not* benign:  these countries are targets of conquest and internal dissent, violence, Balkanisation -- internal weaknesses -- serve their purposes. So I'm guessing that the lifted sanctions re Iran (and Cuba) are more of the same.  They're lifting sanctions to get close enough to build up opposition in those countries, to the point where *defending* the activities of the 'opposition' (ie their proxies) & 'defending' 'hooman rights', can then be used as an excuse for what is war of aggression planned by the West. That's my theory so far, but I'm taking wild gut instinct guesses instead of knowing all the ins and outs of this (I've yet to read my copy of The WikiLeaks Files). Syria should be supported in view of this brazen, concerted, aggressive US & friends led campaign to destroy and Balkanise a nation, much like they did Iraq,  by illegal conquest, for perverse exploitation by the same coterie of American-led aggressors. PS ...  Check out how close the Twitter & Google tech mob are to the US Department of State:  no wonder all we get is controlled media propaganda and CENSORSHIP of real voices on these communication and information platforms that have been hijacked and monopolised by those that are engaged self enrichment, along with US state political agenda pushing.

The Democracy Lie

The Democracy Lie The 'democracy' holy grail isn't all that it's hyped up to be. If you have government that is controlled by the wealthy, by corporations and by foreign interests, and is elected by a largely uninformed, apathetic and politically unorganised public, from a small pool of politicians who are all much the same as one another, what you've got is 'democracy' in name only. Take the legislation that was pushed through by the Australian government: #Auspol - very sad day for press freedom - http://alliance.org.au/meaa-condemns-passage-of-national-security-laws … / criminalizes legitimate reporting of matters in public interest. It penalises whistle-blowers, it gags the press, it further blocks transparency and accountability and therefore undermines any notion of 'democracy'.  And it infringes on civil rights. Meanwhile, the general public's probably more concerned about the release of the new Apple phone than they are about the laws that are passed. But even if large numbers of people were as outraged as they ought to be, as individuals versus government or the system, they're helpless until the next limited-choice corporate and US puppet government election.  That being the case, the public is completely at the mercy of the ruling classes on an ongoing basis, irrespective of the pretence of democratic representation and democratic government. 'Democracy' is the same deal the world over: #Obama #WallStreet #USA - attack on democracy - corruption of elections http://tinyurl.com/nxxbl5u  / $7 million bankroll / #NGO The Denial Machine principles in Greenpeace material can be applied WIDELY when it comes to political lobbying >> http://tinyurl.com/68lngwa [The above link was the initial link I looked at but the following notes are based on information from elsewhere on the Greenpeace site] #Politics - 'think tanks' + NGOs = 'echo chambers' strategy / co-ordinated propaganda attacks >> such groups are the CHORUS .. singing on behalf of agenda of benefactors >> business groups, women's groups, education groups, seniors groups, religious groups -- WHO funds them & WHY Here's a couple of interesting links that demonstrates how much corporate political control there is in the US (but it's applicable to anywhere that pretends to be a democracy): http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-the-koch-funded-c/ http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/ Driving me crazy not being able to find the link where I got the 'think tanks', 'echo chambers' and 'chorus' information from. Whoever used that terminology to describe lobbying organisations and those they influence has done a great job in conveying what they are in simple, descriptive and easy to remember terms.  ------------------------------------------ Postscript Moments after posting the above, I've had my point of view affirmed on social media: Whistle-blowers Activists & Citizens Alliance (WACA)  https://twitter.com/akaWACA Anti-war Protest at:  Swan Island, Australia "Members of SAS known as the assassins in Aust military - stripped naked, hooded & beat up peace activists for entering military base #auspol" "Welcome 2 #TeamAustralia where military assassins from SAS torture peaceful protestors. Imagine what they do in Iraq https://www.facebook.com/pages/Whistleblowers-Activists-and-Citizens-Alliance/166696300034817 … "Seriously get ur head around this. Aust Military just hooded and beat up christian peace activists on Swan Island for daring to protest war" "WTF!! Absolute DISGRACE. that doesnt border on torture that IS torture. if they do that to our own wtf do they do to others " "SAS officers handcuffed, dragged activists on the ground when didn’t respond to Q's stating “If you move we will kick you in the face”" "SAS officers placed Hessian bags over activists heads & asked “do you want to go for a swim” before being dragging them naked across ground" "SAS officers cut activists clothing off with knives. Hessian bags were placed over their heads and told “welcome to the bag motherfucker"" The above is some of the feed from the WACA account.   What's happening is unbelievable.  No representative of the government (which in turn is supposed to  represent the *people*) should have the right -- or inclination -- to do that. What does that tell you about 'democracy'?  Clearly, it's a farce. Further Info: #BREAKING >> Australian peace activists detained and assaulted by SAS on Swan Island >> http://tinyurl.com/m7f2kf9  >> #Auspol Further Info - Democracy Under Attack - Australia  #Auspol - building blocks of our democratic system under attack - #ASIO given law enforcement powers - https://archive.today/FHEiQ

POROSHENKO - US PUPPET - US AGENT

Our Ukraine Insider: The New President Once Agent for the US State Department Michael Collins / The 4th Media News | Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 17:43 Beijing Is he still working for his former masters in Washington, DC? Two diplomatic messages from the WikiLeaks Public Library on U.S. Diplomacy indicate that newly elected President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko was an agent for United States State Department. A confidential message from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev on April 29, 2006 mentions the newly elected Ukraine president twice. ... [...] The inauguration speech in Kiev included the new president’s desire to sign the European Union (EU) association agreement and seek full integration into the EU, which implies NATO membership. “Dear friends, my pen is already in my hands. I am ready now. As soon as the EU takes a relevant decision, the signature of the Ukrainian president will immediately appear under this document. We see the association agreement as only the first step towards Ukraine’s fully-fledged membership in the European Union ” Petro Poroshenko, June 7 As Poroshenko spoke, “Residents [of Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine] said the sounds of shelling reverberated around the city on Friday.” ABC, June 7 Which Poroshenko can we believe? The president who worked for the U.S. as “our Ukraine insider” or the elected head of a sovereign state engaged in honest diplomacy? Right now, it’s safe to stick with the bellicose rhetoric of the inaugural speech. In a heavily documented report, RT showed the handiwork of President Poroshenko’s troops in Slavyansk – eight dead yesterday from aerial bombardment of the separatist occupied city administrative building. “Death and destruction is reported in eastern Ukraine as Kiev’s artillery has resumed shelling the rebellious city of Slavyansk. Locals tell RT they have been without running water and power for days, and that hope is fading.” RT, June 8 The $5 billion spent to get a U.S. friendly government in the Ukraine worked. “Our Ukraine insider,” Petro Poroshenko, is president. He was informed five years ago that the U.S. wanted Ukraine in NATO, and he no doubt heard Vice President Joseph Biden’s speech in Kiev. Without a vote by Congress or a valid treaty, Biden assured the then coup-run government that our government would be there to help. U.S. will stand by Ukraine in face of Russian aggression, Biden says “I came here to Kiev to let you know, Mr. Prime Minister, and every Ukrainian know that the United States stands with you and is working to support all Ukrainians seeking a better future. You should know that you will not walk this road alone. We will walk it with you.” Vice President Joseph Biden, April 22 The players and plans have been in place for years and it’s all paid off. The White House and their masters finally have their insider in place in charge of Ukraine. It’s worth listening to the assessment of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst and his Deputy around the time they handled Poroshenko. The ambassador saw him as a “disgraced oligarch” and his deputy pointed out that “Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations.” Spreading brand democracy around the world is a tough job. Somebody’s got to do it. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.4thmedia.org/2014/06/ukraine-president-once-agent-for-us-state-department/

This is a link to a 2006 WikiLeaks cable - here.


 John E Herbst, then US ambassador to Ukraine - wikipedia info - here.

Herbst is now 'Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center' director Atlantic Council - here.

'Dinu Patriciu' is a billionaire Romanian businessman that's involved in the Council, so the centre is named after him, one would guess.  Wikipedia on Patriciu - here.

MH17 - Is Tony Abbott gonna be a hero in eastern Ukraine?

Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts' Date July 27, 2014 Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of Australia's intention to send 190 armed Australian Federal Police and an unknown number of ADF [Australian Defence Force] personnel  ... [... extract only ...] The senior defence figure, who did not wish to be named, said it was a poor idea for Australia. ''They can't secure the site,'' he said. ''It's kilometres long and wide. They could escort Australian officials and provide close protection, but this is a civil task rather than a military task and it's a terribly volatile area. ''We don't have the language skills or knowledge of the area. ''For any military deployment, you have to look at a status of forces agreement with the government and, given the area the aircraft is in, I don't think there is anyone to make that agreement with. What I've heard is the rebels don't want more than 30 investigators there.'' Mr Abbott confirmed on Saturday that 230 Australian officials would be sent to help with the recovery. This, he said, would include a small number of defence personnel. ''That is our mission, to secure the remains, to assist the investigation and to obtain justice for the victims and their loved ones,'' Mr Abbott said. ''It is, I stress, a humanitarian mission. Others can get involved if they wish in the politics of eastern Europe.'' Mr Abbott said that, despite the dangers, armed personnel are needed to secure the site. ... Source - SMH - here.

---------------------------------------------
COMMENT

From the headline, I thought: Hey, someone's been reading social media.

SMH gives "Peter Dean, director of studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University", the megaphone -- after conveying the contrary views of some faceless, unnamed 'senior defence figure'.  

The academic conveys:

''It really depends on the diplomacy undertaken around this,'' Dr Dean said. ''If our government can make its intentions clear and be accepted on those grounds I think this [Mr Abbott's goal] can be achieved.''

Dr Dean said Australia's status as a non-NATO member would play in its favour and its geographical distance from Europe would also help.

''I think we see it through a different lens than the European commentators,'' he said. [Yeah, through the US lens.] 

 ''We are not sending the army over there to take on the Russians or separatists. It's not a European country interfering in another European country's business. It's a country from the outside that has experienced a significant loss of life of Australian people and permanent residents.

''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''

So who are you going to listen to: faceless, unnamed source in the military -- or an impressive academic specialist?

Hmmm ... looks to me like the academic is justifying Abbott's decision:

''We are not sending the army ...to take on Russians or separatists."

''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''

Anyone who has watched their own people being slaughtered around them and anyone who has put their own life on the line to defend their nation, their people; their pulverised town; their land; their national identity; their beliefs; their aims; their future and the future of generations ahead; is -- I'm guessing -- likely to be, at the very least, uneasy with foreign military presence on their blood-soaked soil, whatever the rationale offered.

Noticed Peter Dean happens to be a Fulbright Professional Scholar:

Fulbright Professional Scholar

Fulbright Professional Scholarship in Australian-United States Alliance Studies, sponsored by DFAT.

Peter Dean is currently Fellow and Director of Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. He will study at Georgetown University, Washington from August to November 2014, focusing on Australia-United States strategic relations, and how that strategic relationship has evolved and changed over time.

He will also visit the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the leading global think tank for security and strategic issues.

and that this scholarship is sponsored by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.

THE FULBRIGHT PROGRAM

The Australian-American Fulbright Commission is a non-profit organisation in Australia, established in 1949 to further mutual understanding between the U.S. and Australia through education and exchange.

... It is part of the world-wide Fulbright Program, administered by the U.S. State Department.

Maybe I'm one-eyed, but this looks to be yet another US-NGO linked (however tenuously) to the affairs of a foreign nation -- in this case, an ally, Australia. [See addendum below. Not NGO. Govt. org.]

The name of the game with NGOs [and GOs] appears to be networking, education and undoubtedly influence, whatever the noble, stated organisational aims.

The views of respected academic authorities are always very impressive. 

Nonetheless one is bound to question:   how independent and unbiased are the views of such authorities?

SMH reports:

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told parliament in The Hague on Friday he was too concerned about possible ramifications to send troops to Ukraine.

SMH quotes some American think tank nobody's ever heard of, based in Washington:

Joerg Forbrig, senior program officer for central and eastern Europe at the Berlin bureau of the German Marshall Fund of the US, said of the Australian plan: ''They must be nuts. It's a very dangerous proposal and will be seen as a provocation by the separatists and the Russians.''

 

Unknown think tank says Abbott's plan's nuts.

So why isn't think tank backing Abbott? Come on, what's going on?

Oh, I get it. Readers will see "eastern Europe" and "Berlin bureau" and "German", and they'll dismiss the statement.

The German Marshall Fund is a US NGO promoting 'democracy'.

Like all these NGO 'think tanks' it has tentacles all over:

"GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm"

-- and it puts out surveys.

So it would appear it is a US group with an agenda and a stake in interfering in Europe.  And even this group is saying armed troops could be seen as provocative.

Netherlands is sending:

a separate mission of 40 unarmed military police to the site to help complete the forensic work and gather evidence, Mr Rutte said.

UK plays it smart at the sidelines:

Britain has sent one forensics specialist to Kiev and nine scientists are working in the Netherlands to help identify bodies and secure evidence.

... would ''offer logistical support and is keeping in close contact with the Australians and Dutch over how it can assist, though it won't be putting be sending police or technicians to Ukraine''.

''We believe a UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate,'' the Foreign Office said in a statement. ''The UK stands ready to provide constructive support to the mission.''

But SMH had stated:

Malaysia, Germany and Britain are the other three nations that are expected to contribute to the security force.

It's unclear how UK is 'expected to contribute to the security force' if the UK Foreign Office believes a 'UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate."

CONCLUSION

Is this Tony Abbott trying to play the hero in eastern Europe, to ass-kiss his big-boy buddy, USA?

And is this more likely a sly US attempt at getting a foothold in the eastern Ukrainian territory -- via a 'naive' but willing, Australian ally -- than it is about a 'bring them home' mission?

-----------------------
Addendum - Further info and Comment

Fulbright Program

The Fulbright Program operates in over 155 countries around the world. In each of 50 countries, a bi-national Fulbright Commission administers and oversees the Fulbright Program. In countries without a Fulbright Commission but that have an active program, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy oversees the Fulbright Program.

The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs sponsors the Fulbright Program from an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress. Additional direct and in-kind support comes from partner governments, foundations, corporations, and host institutions both in and outside the U.S.

The program is coordinated by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State under policy guidelines established by the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), with the help of 50 bi-national Fulbright commissions, U.S. embassies, and cooperating organizations in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of State is responsible for managing, coordinating and overseeing the Fulbright program. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the bureau in the Department of State that has primary responsibility for the administration of the program.

Bi-national Fulbright commissions and foundations, most of which are funded jointly by the U.S. and partner governments, develop priorities for the program, including the numbers and categories of grants. More specifically, they plan and implement educational exchanges, recruit and nominate candidates for fellowships; designate qualified local educational institutions to host Fulbrighters; fundraise; engage alumni; support incoming U.S. Fulbrighters; and, in many countries, operate an information service for the public on educational opportunities in the United States

In a country active in the program without a Fulbright commission, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy administers the Fulbright Program, including recruiting and nominating candidates for grants to the U.S., overseeing U.S. Fulbrighters on their grant in the country, and engaging alumni.


Related organizations

The Fulbright Association is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. The Fulbright Association was established on Feb. 27, 1977, as a private nonprofit, membership organization with over 9,000 members. The late Arthur Power Dudden was its founding president. He wanted alumni to educate members of the U.S. Congress and the public about the benefits of advancing increased mutual understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries. In addition to the Fulbright Association in the U.S., independent Fulbright Alumni associations exist in over 75 countries around the world.

The Fulbright Academy is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. A non-partisan, non-profit organization with members worldwide, the Fulbright Academy focuses on the professional advancement ... individual and institutional members, Fulbright alumni associations and other organizations interested in leveraging the unique knowledge and skills of Fulbright alumni.

[Source - wikipedia]

Further Comment

If I have this straight, the Fulbright Program is sponsored by US and Australian government (or other governments, as the case may be) and it is coordinated by US government, its Fulbright Commissions around the world and US embassies, in cooperation 'with organisations in the US'.

Although the Fulbright Program is related to what appear to be NGOs (the Fulbright Association and the Fulbright Academy), the Fulbright Program itself and the Fulbright Commissions -- and therefore Fulbright Scholarships - arise from US (and partner) government funding.

The Fulbright Program (from which scholarships arise) is therefore not an NGO (as initially appraised by the blogger) - it's a full US government (and partner government) org -- although foundations, corporations and host institutions -- both in US and wherever program is hosted -- may also contribute to funding.

And if you look at the picture from a cynic's point of view, the entire thing looks like an indoctrination scheme and pyramid 'selling' scheme (er, educational, cultural, networking initiative) that reaches out around the globe -- selling the US, its perspective and its agenda, creating contact points for the US and surely quietly influencing on behalf of the US, with cooperative governments -- and I'm guessing any sponsoring CORPORATIONS in the US and beyond.

Anyway, that's my opinion.  

But, hey, I could be sitting here wearing tin foil on my head, so make up your own minds.