Saturday, March 10, 2012
Subverting Democracy Through Paying Advertisers
Nations aren't that keen on making war these days. It is only very small countries that benefit from our military liberation - Libya was small enough but Syria is clearly a bigger mouthful.
Instead what we see, particularly with the world getting more democratic, is countries funding opposition political parties or movements. This is the basis of Putin's complaints about some, of his opposition. It was how the "Orange revolution" in Ukraine, the Yugoslav ones (including the creation of the parties led by assorted (ex-)Nazis. It is how the "Rose revolution" brought Georgia under the heel of its present genocidal leader. In a slightly different form it is clearly how the 2nd Irish referendum was fixed.
This is an example of something slightly different. Not an attempt to overthrow the government but to prevent its economic growth. India decided not to put up with such external subversion.
Of course just because money is officially given for "nice" causes doesn't mean the donors don't know the actualite. Look at the Pope giving "2 billion to the Croatian Nazis with the official requirement that they not buy weapons with it. When somebody feels the need to make such a qualification it is reasonable to believe they are expecting precisely that.
Which raises three questions.
1 - How much of our own politics is determined by money put up by foreign governmental organisations. The money available to government is always far more than that available from personal donors not matter how rich.
2 - How long before some of the victims or some non-democracies like China decide to play this game.Would $5 billion put into supporting the various state secessionist movements in the USA be effective? That is about 1/10th of China's defence budget for 1 year. Or £100 million into Orkney a Shetland secessionists?
3 - Since this largely depends on the victim countries being open democracies, is there a better way than this to undermine democracy?
So personally I would be happy to see anybody taking money from foreign countries to subvert their own government strung up as traitors. At least if they are subverting a state that doesn't already practise this subversion of democracy abroad themselves.
Instead what we see, particularly with the world getting more democratic, is countries funding opposition political parties or movements. This is the basis of Putin's complaints about some, of his opposition. It was how the "Orange revolution" in Ukraine, the Yugoslav ones (including the creation of the parties led by assorted (ex-)Nazis. It is how the "Rose revolution" brought Georgia under the heel of its present genocidal leader. In a slightly different form it is clearly how the 2nd Irish referendum was fixed.
This is an example of something slightly different. Not an attempt to overthrow the government but to prevent its economic growth. India decided not to put up with such external subversion.
India said Saturday it had frozen the assets of three non-profit groups it alleges were diverting foreign aid funds to fuel protests against plans to build two atomic power stations.
The country's move to construct two giant nuclear power stations in the southern state of Tamil Nadu and one in the western state of Maharashtra has been thrown into disarray following the protests by villagers and activists.\What atrocities are carried out inder the term "aid".
A senior officer at the prime minister's office told AFP that the home ministry had frozen the accounts of three non-government organisations.
The move came after a minister in the federal government, V. Narayanasamy, on Friday said the three aid groups were getting funds from the United States and Scandinavian countries that were being used for anti-nuclear protests.
"These NGOs were receiving funds from foreign countries for social service causes like helping the physically handicapped and eradication of leprosy but these (funds) were used for anti-nuclear protests," he was quoted by the Press Trust of India news agency as saying.
Of course just because money is officially given for "nice" causes doesn't mean the donors don't know the actualite. Look at the Pope giving "2 billion to the Croatian Nazis with the official requirement that they not buy weapons with it. When somebody feels the need to make such a qualification it is reasonable to believe they are expecting precisely that.
Which raises three questions.
1 - How much of our own politics is determined by money put up by foreign governmental organisations. The money available to government is always far more than that available from personal donors not matter how rich.
2 - How long before some of the victims or some non-democracies like China decide to play this game.Would $5 billion put into supporting the various state secessionist movements in the USA be effective? That is about 1/10th of China's defence budget for 1 year. Or £100 million into Orkney a Shetland secessionists?
3 - Since this largely depends on the victim countries being open democracies, is there a better way than this to undermine democracy?
So personally I would be happy to see anybody taking money from foreign countries to subvert their own government strung up as traitors. At least if they are subverting a state that doesn't already practise this subversion of democracy abroad themselves.
Labels: Government parasitism, International politics, Rise of modern fascism
