The comment is not profound, it's just profoundly naive. President Clinton at some point mentioned his favourable university professor, prof. Carrol Quigley. Quigley's books, which stroke the future President so much, were almost unavaliable for a long time, and for a good reason too. Quigley, a member of the elite, was allowed into the closed archives of Council for Foreign Affairs, and his best-known book describes the inner workings of the mechanisms of power, not as an outrage and distortion of "true democracy", but out of sheer admiration for how much has been done. Quigley considered changes that substituted the (outwardly still maintained illusion of) democracy with different mechanisms so irreversible that, he thought, it was time to announce the new rulers to the ruled. That is where elite disagreed, and why for a long time Quigley's books became hardly available.
So, to put it in a nutshell, even in the distant 1950s Quigley described the system of NGO's, Funds and "Charities" as a second, parallel structure of government in the so-called "democratic societies". It's the NGO's and Funds that control today what research is done in universities, are responsible for the abrupt and violent change in education beginning in 1960s, are used in place of badly smelling official CIA operations to conduct "regime change" abroad (by means of the so-called "colour revolutions"), etc. etc. etc.
Your profound (if trivial) moron missed the point: the change has been completed more that 50-60 years ago.
The comment was that NGO offer power without accountability. An implication was that this is what makes it attractive. Do you agree or not?
Instapundit wrote just two sentences, and you managed to misread them. When you wrote your so-many-words comment, did you expect me to read it carefully?
The fact is that THIS WAS DONE MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY AGO in the USA and UK by the monied clan, caste, or clique -- so speaking about this as a revelation displays naivete or unwillingness to see the world in real terms
The second fact is that the author of the article that provoked this comment is amazingly liberal with the truth (as he is fully expected be as one from the Foreign Affairs magazine, we should add)
..and in the article you refer to "moises naim" from Foreign Affairs (the magazine of the Council for Foreign Affairs, in case you did not know) lies his pants off by placing blame mostly on gongos in the countries the US ruling mafia is trying to eliminate or colonize. Of course, NED is mentioned (you can hardly avoid mentioning the elephant in the room right?), but in placating non-injuring terms. The fact is, however, that there are literally hundreds of smaller surreptitious NGOs and tens of huge policy-creating NGOs in the USA, and that the whole idea started and developed as a mechanism of wielding power that would bypass official channels by the bankers in UK and the USA.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
President Clinton at some point mentioned his favourable university professor, prof. Carrol Quigley. Quigley's books, which stroke the future President so much, were almost unavaliable for a long time, and for a good reason too. Quigley, a member of the elite, was allowed into the closed archives of Council for Foreign Affairs, and his best-known book describes the inner workings of the mechanisms of power, not as an outrage and distortion of "true democracy", but out of sheer admiration for how much has been done. Quigley considered changes that substituted the (outwardly still maintained illusion of) democracy with different mechanisms so irreversible that, he thought, it was time to announce the new rulers to the ruled.
That is where elite disagreed, and why for a long time Quigley's books became hardly available.
So, to put it in a nutshell, even in the distant 1950s Quigley described the system of NGO's, Funds and "Charities" as a second, parallel structure of government in the so-called "democratic societies".
It's the NGO's and Funds that control today what research is done in universities, are responsible for the abrupt and violent change in education beginning in 1960s, are used in place of badly smelling official CIA operations to conduct "regime change" abroad (by means of the so-called "colour revolutions"), etc. etc. etc.
Your profound (if trivial) moron missed the point: the change has been completed more that 50-60 years ago.
no subject
the change
has beenwas completed more that 50-60 years ago.Let's see now
Instapundit wrote just two sentences, and you managed to misread them. When you wrote your so-many-words comment, did you expect me to read it carefully?
Re: Let's see now
The second fact is that the author of the article that provoked this comment is amazingly liberal with the truth (as he is fully expected be as one from the Foreign Affairs magazine, we should add)
no subject
Of course, NED is mentioned (you can hardly avoid mentioning the elephant in the room right?), but in placating non-injuring terms.
The fact is, however, that there are literally hundreds of smaller surreptitious NGOs and tens of huge policy-creating NGOs in the USA, and that the whole idea started and developed as a mechanism of wielding power that would bypass official channels by the bankers in UK and the USA.
no subject
(Sorry, never mind... I'm just speaking to myself...)