How an NGO works

How an NGO works


For those who are not familiar with how an NGO works, the following may be somewhat surprising; however, you will understand where your charitable contributions go.

The other evening I had a conversation with a young, Australian man who heads an NGO that operates in the Philippines. This young man holds a Masters in Economics and is formerly an HSBC banker.

This particular NGO uses Muhammad Yunus's Nobel Prize winning idea of micro-loans. Here is how micro-loans work; in this example, the WTO creates an NGO. The NGO has plans for a cook stove. This cook stove is designed abroad and is (allegedly) fifty percent more efficient than the local cook stove the Philippines islanders are using: benefit for the locals: use less charcoal; global benefit: deplete less rainforest. Great idea?!

But the stoves are not free. They cost three dollars. The locals have no cash; they live almost perfectly money free lives. Looked at this way, this eco-friendly NGO is no longer a charity at all, but a tool of the WTO, with three (real) purposes:

-to lay down a ground work for a future cash economy were there previously was little to none;

-to create a quarter billion dollars of debt for rural Filipinos --which can then be sold on the Futures Market;

-create 200 million tons of Carbon Credit to be sold on the Carbon Credit Market. (Recall the claim of 50% greater efficiency).

Now you know how this sort of thing works; and why Muhammad Yunus's idea of micro-loans is so important. National debt in the Philippines is raising 11% per year, foreign debt is now over P4,000,000,000,000 and internal debt is at 68 billion dollars. Micro-loans can still tap billions out of the country at the peasant level. In its first year of operations, this NGO has distributed 20,000 cook stoves.

The corruption of charitable work is indeed regrettable, especially to the majority of people who work in the sector who believe they are working towards a goal that helps others. Its a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I am interested as to where you received the information that the WTO creates NGO's. And if this is the case, if you believe this is true for all charitable organisations in the field.

This is one reason why I laugh at the subjects of both philantropy and altruism.

( Can you say ulterior motives?)

Excellent thread Serge.

Rhinoboy wrote:

The corruption of charitable work is indeed regrettable, especially to the majority of people who work in the sector who believe they are working towards a goal that helps others. Its a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I am interested as to where you received the information that the WTO creates NGO's. And if this is the case, if you believe this is true for all charitable organisations in the field.

"WTO" is not the particular truth. A few small details have been changed for the sake of privacy. It is a similar, well known acronym.

About the "kick in the teeth", these days I lean more and more towards foreign non-intervention. Intervention is always wrong.

The NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR
Volume VXI, Number 133; Friday, 29 August, 2008

People's Desire
*Oppose those relying on external elements, acting as stooges, holding negative views
*Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State and progress of the nation
*Oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs of the state
*Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy

*Skyful liars attempting to destroy the nation
*BBC lying
*VOA deceiving
*RFA setting up hostilities
*Beware! Don't be bought by those ill-wishers

[VOA=Voice of America, RFA=Radio Free Asia]

Serge wrote:

"WTO" is not the particular truth. A few small details have been changed for the sake of privacy. It is a similar, well known acronym.

I don't see how privacy is an issue, you have named no names, all you have done is constructed a false accusation of your own admission, very poor play
If we cannot trust you to tell the truth how can we believe anything you say?

Quote :

About the "kick in the teeth", these days I lean more and more towards foreign non-intervention. Intervention is always wrong.

Well now, that's a big statement drawn from one example, an example that you changed or omitted cirtain truths from. Provide adequate evidence please

Quote :

The NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR
Volume VXI, Number 133; Friday, 29 August, 2008

People's Desire
*Oppose those relying on external elements, acting as stooges, holding negative views
*Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State and progress of the nation
*Oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs of the state
*Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy

*Skyful liars attempting to destroy the nation
*BBC lying
*VOA deceiving
*RFA setting up hostilities
*Beware! Don't be bought by those ill-wishers

[VOA=Voice of America, RFA=Radio Free Asia]

[/quote]
Quoting from a newspaper containing such obvious bias is not a good stand for your argument, even if it was reliable it does not support your statement that Intervention is always wrong. Please provide actual evidence, rather than bitter opinion

Rhinoboy wrote:

If we cannot trust you to tell the truth how can we believe anything you say?

Journalists are not required to show their sources. You know why that is?

Quote :

Quote :

About the "kick in the teeth", these days I lean more and more towards foreign non-intervention. Intervention is always wrong.

Provide adequate evidence please

This is what I'd like very exactly to discuss with you. It is easy to say that the Japenese building roads all over less-developed countries is simply to lay the infrastructure for future auto-sales. But I propose a deeper criticism:

"Burma" and "Zimbabwe" for the UK and Cuba and "North Korea" for America are almost identical cases. Those four all went after a path of autarky, and have been demonized for about the last 50 years as a result. Why oughtn't these countries be let be? The masters are only happy when they have their fingers in your pie.

Quote :

Quote :

The NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR
Volume VXI, Number 133; Friday, 29 August, 2008

People's Desire
*Oppose those relying on external elements, acting as stooges, holding negative views
*Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State and progress of the nation
*Oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs of the state
*Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy

*Skyful liars attempting to destroy the nation
*BBC lying
*VOA deceiving
*RFA setting up hostilities
*Beware! Don't be bought by those ill-wishers

[VOA=Voice of America, RFA=Radio Free Asia]

Quoting from a newspaper containing such obvious bias...

"Obvious bias"?!

Shall I quote the BBC then?

Or VOA!

Serge wrote:

Journalists are not required to show their sources. You know why that is?

I do as a matter of fact. However it is just as if not more important to not change the story so that it incriminates others. Such behaviour could get you in alot of trouble

Quote :

But I propose a deeper criticism:

"Burma" and "Zimbabwe" for the UK and Cuba and "North Korea" for America are almost identical cases. Those four all went after a path of autarky, and have been demonized for about the last 50 years as a result. Why oughtn't these countries be let be? The masters are only happy when they have their fingers in your pie.

What does this have to do with NGO's?

Quote :

"Obvious bias"?!

Shall I quote the BBC then?

Or VOA!

On this matter? Of course not, there would be obvious bias there also.
Do you consider the BBC to be an NGO then?

Quote :

What does this have to do with NGO's?

On May third last year, Myanmar was struck by a devastating cyclone. Sadly, the Western media used this tragedy to build public support for action against one of the last remaining countries in the world that will not participate in the NWO.

Here was the opening shot,

Burma warned over cyclone delays

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned of dire consequences if Burma continues to ban most foreign aid workers from its cyclone relief work.

BBC, 10 May 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7393270.stm

Followed up by an American call for invasion,

Is It Time to Invade Burma?

The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.

"We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma.

Egeland advocates that the U.N. Security Council take punitive steps short of war, such as freezing the regime's assets and issuing warrants for the arrest of individual junta members if they were to leave the country. Similar measures succeeded in getting the government of Ivory Coast to let in foreign relief teams in 2002, Egelend says.

And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.

TIME, 10 May 2008
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 53,00.html

A little history... During the British Raj period, Indians and Chinese were imported very much into Myanmar as into Malaysia or many other colonies. The British and these foreigners were wildly unpopular, however unlike the Bumiputra who became an underclass in Indian and Chinese dominated Malaysia after the colonists left, the people of Myanmar retained greater power. How?

The post-colonial government set up in Myanmar after independence was a model for Western control. The British backed government was initially very stable, U Nu, the British appointed Prime Minister held three terms; and when the world clamored for a non-Westerner to head the U.N., the Burmese U Thant was put in (the Anglosphere continues not to recognize the Myanma's preference that their country be called Myanmar and not Burma which was the British name, the Myanma are the dominant ethnic group in Myanmar, the name is similar to Thailand in this sense. The British had administered Burma under several districts, but these different ethnic regions were conglomerated much like in Iraq or Sudan, and most likely for the same reasons).

Then in 1962 Myanmar was caught up in the Anti-Western and Socialist revolutions that were sweeping Indo-China and Ne Win overthrew the British puppet government. Ne Win is not unlike Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Idi Amin of Uganda who also sought to rid their countries of foreigners and have been demonized in the Anglo-press for decades in response. Ne Win himself was not particularly religious or political, but his backers were, and not unlike Kim Jong-il of North Korea, he created a national religion similar to Ju-che that stressed autarky (self-reliance). Self-sufficiency is percieved as a very dangerous ideology by Western countries, so when Ne Win expelled the foreigners and closed off the country like Pol Pot would the next year and nationalized production and industry he became very unpopular to Westerners.

This is why last year so much press coverage was given to the CIA backed Monk's protests and why Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (The monks are not saints, in fact Osama Bin Laden singled them out for their oppresion of and violence against Indians and Muslims in Myanmar.) With the fall of Butan, only a few countries in Asia continue to hold out against Western influence.

The coverage of the cyclone in Myanmar follows the exact same Western political and media tactics that have been used with monotonous regularity through the decades and in countries throughout Latin America, the Middle-East, Africa, South-East Asia and East-Asia. Don't believe the hype and support Myanmar going down the same path of modernization and Westernization as Thailand and Malaysia have; or worse, as Indonesia and the Philippines have.

I am very sympathetic towards Myanma political ideology. Though far less high profile than the Khmer Rouge or Kim Jong-il, there are quite a few similarities. In particular, anti-foreigner and anti-development. As is well known, the KR purged Cambodia of foreign influence, this was also done in North Korea where for instance Chinese characters and English vocabulary were removed from the language, it is still virtually impossible to travel to North Korea

North Korea adopted a brand of socialism that did call for development, but perhaps mostly due to fifty years of embargo by the West, the well known night-time satellite photos of North Korea and South Korea show relatively how little development has occurred in the North. It is also in the North that any species of large mammal still exists on the peninsula; in Myanmar is the enormous Hukawng Valley Reserve.

My experiences in life have led me to the conclusion that development is one, even the, chief evil of this world.

The government of Myanmar does not have clean hands, but the alternative is so very much worse; by comparison: in Myanmar it is the indigenous Myanma who dominate the country, in North Korea the Koreans; where as in Malaysia it is the foreign Chinese and Indians who dominate the indigenous Bumiputra and in South Korea the Americans. In Malaysia the jungle is fast turning into Palm Plantation, the tiger population is in extreme danger due to development.

Why the Myanmar Government opposed the intervention of Euro-American NGOs in the wake of Cyclone Nargis is that the NGOs carried with them an agenda, and that agenda is very contrary to the policies of the Government. Although the people are not happy with the Government, they are very aware of the tactics of the Western Bloc and their objectives. The regime in Myanmar is hardly any different than that in Cambodia; but because Cambodia has now opened up to the the West, they are the darling of the UN and NGOs. But the differences are really few: the same bogus elections, the same leaders in power for decades, the same quasi-communism, the same Chinese influence, the same closed-up free press.

Take just one of the many bogus criticisms against Myanmar: the movement of the capital to Naypyidaw; this is criticized for being based on numerology, astrology and superstition; but did any one call the Chinese crazy for choosing the auspicious date 8/8/8 to open the Olympic games, or would any Western business have its grand opening on a Friday the 13th? In fact, the move is firmly in the Anglo tradition, Australia's capital at Canberra and Canada's capital at Ottawa are both smaller cities, away from the financial and population centers.

Now, between colonialism and neo-colonialism, developmentally speaking, Myanmar and other less-developed states benefit much more from the latter as they have infrastructure and technology at the end of the day. Where as not a cannon nor a ship could have been built anywhere in the colonial British Raj by 1947, by contrast, neo-colonial Taiwan and Thailand are now full of Panasonic and Toyota factories.

Often, NGOs are criticized for gross corruption, rolling Isuzu Troopers full of hookers, salaries fifty times the local average, or meddling in local politics; but I want to address something a little different. The cook stove NGO described in the OP does have vehicles, and the foreigners are making salaries of about 1000 Pounds per month --but I mean to show how even the normal operation of many NGOs is "bad" because they are nearly always development schemes.

I suggest, LEAVE AFRICA ALONE. Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, leave them all alone. I want to be clear about what I think this means, humans lived for say 100,000 years in very simple hunter and gatherer or village societies; this was not fully sustainable (see Uruk today! nothing but desert; it is a fair guess that poor agricultural practices are the reason), but it was much more so than "our" ways, we have now perhaps one decade left during which the Earth will be liveable. If we can believe the Blitzkrieg Hypothesis of Megafauna Extinction, human nature is corrupt, we will will our own end. But we must choose not to believe this; otherwise humanity is certainly doomed. Foreign intervention is nearly always the wrong decision, even if we believe it is done with the best intentions. Africans got along well without soap and Christianity for thousands of years; mega dams, highways, highrises, row apartments, factories etcetera too.

Burmese Days, Orwell, George. 1934

Dr. Veraswami:

"Could the Burmese trade for themselves? Can they make machinery, ships, railways, roads? They are helpless without you.
...
Look merely out this veranda--look at that hospital, and over to the right at that school and that police station. Look at the whole uprush of modern progress!'"

Flory:

"It is so simple. The offical holds the Burman down while the businessman goes through his pockets. Do you suppose my firm, for instance, could get the timber contracts if the country weren't in the hands of the British?
...
In fact, before we've finshed we'll have wrecked the whole Burmese national culture. ... Where's it going to lead, this uprush of modern progress, as you call it? Just to our own dear swinery of gramophones and billy-cock hats. Sometimes I think that in two hundred years all this--' he waved a foot towards the horizon--'all this will be gone--forests villages, monasteries, pagodas all vanished. And instead, pink villas fifty yards apart; all over these hills, as far as you can see, villa after villa, with all the gramaphones playing the same tune. And all the forests shaved flat -- chewed into wood-pulp for the News of the World, or sawn up into gramaphone cases.
...
'Well, doctor, we shall never agree. The fact is that you like all this modern business, wereas I'd rather see things a little bit septic. Burma in the days of Thibaw would have suited me better, I think."

Serge wrote:

My experiences in life have led me to the conclusion that development is one, even the, chief evil of this world.

My experiences have led me to the conclusion that development is in virtually all cases inevitable. Exceptions are tribal communities, however even here it does seem regrettably... well... inevitable due to globalisation, any development that uproots these communities I oppose as strongly as you oppose all development. I'm not going to dispute whether development is a good or a bad thing, it is simply happening, there is no point in ignoring it or fighting it. It is like the rising tide, we can build defences as much as we want to prevent the onslaught of the sea but eventually this will lead to more damage later on, what we can do is prepare those who will be most severely affected by it. That's what NGOs do.

Quote :

Why the Myanmar Government opposed the intervention of Euro-American NGOs in the wake of Cyclone Nargis is that the NGOs carried with them an agenda, and that agenda is very contrary to the policies of the Government.

As this is one of the few points in that post that was directly related to NGOs lets discuss that agenda

Quote :

Although the people are not happy with the Government,

Personally I don't care about governments if they do not support their peoples views, and if it were me I would compromise for the sake of human life. That is of the utmost importance.

Quote :

Often, NGOs are criticized for gross corruption, rolling Isuzu Troopers full of hookers, salaries fifty times the local average, or meddling in local politics; but I want to address something a little different. The cook stove NGO described in the OP does have vehicles, and the foreigners are making salaries of about 1000 Pounds per month --but I mean to show how even the normal operation of many NGOs is "bad" because they are nearly always development schemes.

We have been over the corruption in NGOs, you are yet to convince me that this outweighs the good work they do. NGOs are involved in development is because the work they do is for the seriously impoverished an to help these people they must be given the tools to survive, which will of course lead to development on some scale as a by-product.

Quote :

I suggest, LEAVE AFRICA ALONE. Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, leave them all alone.

NGOs are not the problem here, its Globalisation. NGOs are cleaning up the mess that a global economy is causing

Quote :

I want to be clear about what I think this means, humans lived for say 100,000 years in very simple hunter and gatherer or village societies; this was not fully sustainable (see Uruk today! nothing but desert; it is a fair guess that poor agricultural practices are the reason), but it was much more so than "our" ways, we have now perhaps one decade left during which the Earth will be liveable.

We have been over this in a previous argument, you are still to provide any evidence whatsoever, let alone credible evidence for this, until you are able to do so, your point is moot

Quote :

If we can believe the Blitzkrieg Hypothesis of Megafauna Extinction, human nature is corrupt, we will will our own end. But we must choose not to believe this; otherwise humanity is certainly doomed. Foreign intervention is nearly always the wrong decision, even if we believe it is done with the best intentions. Africans got along well without soap and Christianity for thousands of years; mega dams, highways, highrises, row apartments, factories etcetera too.

But these are problems caused by globalisation and development of western societies. NGO's operate to help these countries survive. Without this help these countries would surely die. I am not a lover of development, as an conservationist I see the problems it causes. I also hate economic globalisation for mostly the reasons you have stated here. However I am not so short sighted to see that it is too late to stop development in 'the west' and it would be immoral to let developing countries die by our mistakes. Its not ideal but it is the best available option

By the way I have little time for these forums these days. If you continue to make the posts so long I regrettably will not be able to counter argue because of this

Rhinoboy wrote:

By the way I have little time for these forums these days. If you continue to make the posts so long I regrettably will not be able to counter argue because of this

Me too.

That was just a prank. I want to reply to your post just above shortly....

Quote :

We have been over the corruption in NGOs, you are yet to convince me that this outweighs the good work they do. NGOs are involved in development is because the work they do is for the seriously impoverished....

This may be true in some very rare cases.

Generally what happens is, foreigners mistake un-developed for "seriously impoverished." Living barefoot in a thatch house is un-developed, not necessarily "impoverished."

Quote :

...an[d] to help these people they must be given the tools to survive, which will of course lead to development on some scale as a by-product.

The development is generally the end. You can't listen to Pink without an electric grid.

Quote :

NGOs are not the problem here, its Globalisation. NGOs are cleaning up the mess that a global economy is causing

I'm thinking what you call "globalization", I call "development"? NGOs lay the ground-work for global economy.

Quote :

NGO's operate to help these countries survive. Without this help these countries would surely die.

Are you joking me?

Burma is surving, by-in-large, well on it's own. Zimbabwe as well. It's amazing that these countries that practice autarky do get along so well as they have been under total embargo for decades, not to mention the inflationary economic warfare.

That Europe or the Arabs or Americans (and now Chinese) have been exploiting Africa for so long, is not a reason to continue with it.

"Failed states" is a manufactured word used to justify foreign-intervention.

Quote :

I also hate economic globalisation for mostly the reasons you have stated here. However I am not so short sighted to see that it is too late to stop development in 'the west' and it would be immoral to let developing countries die by our mistakes.

I don't mean to advocate primitivism -- but something very close to it.

Serge wrote:

This may be true in some very rare cases.

Generally what happens is, foreigners mistake un-developed for "seriously impoverished." Living barefoot in a thatch house is un-developed, not necessarily "impoverished."

That's not what I would say is impoverished and you know it

Quote :

I'm thinking what you call "globalization", I call "development"? NGOs lay the ground-work for global economy.

NGOs on the whole arrive only after a community has been brought into the global economic market. NGOs are the clean up crews for the devastation caused by this

Quote :

Are you joking me?

Not in the slightest

Quote :

Burma is surving, by-in-large, well on it's own. Zimbabwe as well. It's amazing that these countries that practice autarky do get along so well as they have been under total embargo for decades, not to mention the inflationary economic warfare.

That Europe or the Arabs or Americans (and now Chinese) have been exploiting Africa for so long, is not a reason to continue with it.

"Failed states" is a manufactured word used to justify foreign-intervention.

If people don't need help NGOs 'should' not give any I say should because there are always exceptions to the rule, normally born by human error. Anyway in the case of Burma your example was that NGOs wanted to get involved after the hurricane hit, I remember that event, Burma was not surviving, by-in-large, well on its own at this time, unless you count surviving as thousands of members of your country dying

Rhinoboy wrote:

Quote :

I'm thinking what you call "globalization", I call "development"? NGOs lay the ground-work for global economy.

NGOs on the whole arrive only after a community has been brought into the global economic market. NGOs are the clean up crews for the devastation caused by this

Well put.

Quote :

Anyway in the case of Burma your example was that NGOs wanted to get involved after the hurricane hit, I remember that event, Burma was not surviving, by-in-large, well on its own at this time, unless you count surviving as thousands of members of your country dying

Not NGOs at all. They are exactly Governmental Organizations. (Classic euphemism, "war is peace".) The "Free World"'s navy was waiting in the Andaman Sea waiting to to make a beach invasion, C-130 military planes were standing by. The GOs are there to win the hearts and minds, psy-ops.

Why are Jordanians in Haiti?

Why are Jordanians in Haiti?

Haiti was originally settled by Amerindian peoples in the area of 10,000 years ago. The Spanish laid claim to the Island in the time of Columbus, but it was French pirates who settled and set up plantations and mines; they enslaved the local people; but these Amerindians didn't hold up too well, and before long the French were importing slaves en masse from Africa. These African slaves rebelled towards the end of the 18th century, and by 1804 had created the world's first and only country to have been founded by a slave rebellion. The French were not going to give up Haiti that easily, they did send 14 warships to the island, but Napoleon was busy at Jena at that time, so the French settled for an exorbitant amount of gold as repayment for the loss of their island, damage to colonial property and so on.

Things didn't settle down quickly in Haiti; a slave king and a slave republic fought one another for many years; followed by a century of instability. The Americans invaded in 1915, occupying the country until 1934. By 1941 Haiti had paid back their debt to the French -- by this time a total of 51 billion dollars had been paid. Following the American's departure a series of unremarkable American puppet dictators ruled the Island until Papa Doc was elected. Papa Doc had the interests of the people in mind, so he has been remembered in the Western collective consciousness as a brutal dictator; the Americans worried that Papa Doc would be a Castro II. Papa Doc dissolved the army to prevent a CIA coup against himself; but a stroke left him insane and deeply occupied with Vodou, and from then not much of a threat; though he did claim that a Vodou curse of his caused the death of Kennedy. His son Baby Doc followed him, but his French villas and Ferraris did not go over well with the Haitian people -- who overthrew him.

Another series of American backed dictators ruled until Jean-Bertrand Aristide shows up on the scene. Aristide was a priest, but at some point he had a sort of conversion and realized that violence must be used to liberate the people. Haiti is embroiled in a sort or race war; the Amerindian-Africans against the Mulatto elite. Thought his order ex-communicated him for preaching violence, Aristide became increasingly popular with the people. It was at about this time that Pope J.P. II visited Haiti and declared "Something has got to change." Aristide won a major majority in one of Haiti's few fair democratic elections. This was not acceptable to the Americans or the Island's elite, and a CIA backed military coup deposed Aristide shortly after his election. He fled to Venezuela where he was harbored by Chavez; then turned to America's Bush Sr. for help; but of course no luck. However, in the midst of the Haitian boat-people crisis, a presidential hopeful named Clinton saw that he could use Aristide to his advantage; so after his election; and another nearly two years passing; and a promise from Aristide that despite the fact that he had spent most of his presidency in exile he would accept his term of presidency as having started at the time of his origional swearing in which would leave him very little time left in his term, Clinton ordered the go ahead for another invasion of Haiti in 1994 to put the president back into power that Bush had taken out.

Shortly after being put back into power, Aristide learnt from his past mistakes and like Papa Doc before him, disbanded the army. He was then replaced by Preval in a jimmied election held during the American occupation. Preval let the IMF in and also formed free-trade deals with America with the expected results; huge debt, and Haiti, which had previously been agriculturally self sufficient having it's agriculture sector destroyed by American imports, in particular rice.

Aristide won the next election. But the army he had disbanded regrouped in the mountains, and with Clinton out of office the CIA could again fund and arm Aristide's enemies. And Aristide had by this point made some powerful enemies. He demanded the 51 billion France had taken back; and as many Haitian elite had settled in French Canada, major Canadian owned sweat shops were now in danger. The CIA backed disbanded military, who called themselves the Cannibal Army were wreaking mayhem up and down the country, but were not able to take Port au Prince; so in 2004 the Americans, 500 Canadian troops and France invaded the Island. Aristide was kidnapped by Canadian special forces and US marines and flown on a French airliner to the Central African Republic where he wouldn't be making any more trouble. Under a UN mission, America's puppet states, like Morocco, the Philippines and Jordan helped to occupy the country. Canadians were put in charge of setting up a bogus election which they carried out well, polling stations were not set up in "the city of the sun" neighborhood where half-a-million Aristide supporters reside, and Aristide's next in command was prevented from running in the election. Preval was elected again.

And that is why Jordanians are in Haiti.

This argument has to be generalized

If healthy population growth is to continue, the advances in technology needed to meet such expansion is an evolutionary imperative.

The simple fact is that the undeveloped world has to become technologically on par with the 1st world.

How we go about bringing the whole mass of humanity up to par is the basic question.

The existing economic and political ideologies of Capitalism, Communism and Socialism cannot do it.

We are wasting valuable time if we begin by trying to tackle each problem peace meal.
That divides our resources and sends all kinds of competing groups running around the planet with good or bad intentions, trying to put band aids on a planet that is already hemorrhaging to death

We have to first establish an over-all global management strategy

Then deal with the first emergencies.

In order to come together on devising a global strategy for ecological repair and improvement
the revolutionary ideology of self-determination has to be shelved

Its time is over

We have to see ourselves a single family all focused on the development and improvement of the common global estate

Children have to be educated to accept custodianship and not ownership as a far more ethical and efficient system of government than is ownership.

That in itself will free up all the wasted effort currently required to police and administer artificial legalities.

I hope you didn't read all that.

I don't know too many people except myself who have Jean Bertrand Aristide as a personal hero. But if I'm not alone... this looks pretty good,

"ARISTIDE and the Endless Revolution"

MagnetMan wrote:

...the revolutionary ideology of self-determination has to be shelved

Its time is over

But it is only in the last six or eight months that I have realized the beauty of non-intervention, and it's important meaning for anarchist ethics. I'm just starting in on what is "self-determination" ideology, so I hope its time isn't over yet!

Are you meaning to say in a round-about way this?

"Exterminate all the brutes."

- Colonel Kurtz

Quote :

The simple fact is that the undeveloped world has to become technologically on par with the 1st world.

This would result in total environmental failure.

https://dissidentsphilosophy.forumotion.com/sociology-f10/eco-terrorism-t151.htm

Dako wrote:

MagnetMan wrote:

...the revolutionary ideology of self-determination has to be shelved

Its time is over

But it is only in the last six or eight months that I have realized the beauty of non-intervention, and it's important meaning for anarchist ethics.

Go tell that to 100 million moms with starving children. They will kick your anarchist ass out the front door of their unheated hut. They are sick and tired of carrying water on their heads to keep the millet patch alive. They want indoor plumbing and a washing machine to take the tedium out of their lives.

Quote :

I'm just starting in on what is "self-determination" ideology, so I hope its time isn't over yet!

That ideology began 25 centuries ago, what has taken you so long to begin your study? I am afraid you have jumped on the bus right near the terminal. Independence in an interdependent universe has always been a contradiction in terms. It was a rebellious phase and will always be seen as one. When you wash a revolution with blood there is always a price to pay. We made giant leaps in technology and fucked up the planet and other cultures big time in the process.

Quote :

Are you meaning to say in a round-about way...?

I don't beat around the bush. I['m telling you straight. The time for mass change is NOW! Newton is kaput! Einstein is IN!

Quote :

"Exterminate all the brutes."

- Colonel Kurtz

Who's the brute, brutus?

Quote :

The simple fact is that the undeveloped world has to become technologically on par with the 1st world.

Quote :

This would result in total environmental failure. It needs to go the other way around.

Only if we stick with the internal combustion engine. Going back to the ox-wagon is not an option. To many people demanding the good life. And they deserve it. And there is no reason we cannot give it to them. The barrier is both artificial and unethical. Its called capitalism. All the money has to be burned. Its promissory note has expired.
We can run the planet on clean energy and clean up the mess as we go. Evolution means FORWARD not backward. Nationalism is a tired philosophy.. Globalism is hip. Ownership is out. Custodianship is in.

MagnetMan wrote:

They are sick and tired of carrying water on their heads to keep the millet patch alive. They want indoor plumbing and a washing machine to take the tedium out of their lives.

Going back to the ox-wagon is not an option. To many people demanding the good life. And they deserve it. And there is no reason we cannot give it to them.

We disagree profoundly.

It's getting late, but first thing in the morning I shall help you to the truth. Or perhaps I am mistaken...

Dako wrote:

MagnetMan wrote:

They are sick and tired of carrying water on their heads to keep the millet patch alive. They want indoor plumbing and a washing machine to take the tedium out of their lives.

Going back to the ox-wagon is not an option. To many people demanding the good life. And they deserve it. And there is no reason we cannot give it to them.

We disagree profoundly.

It's getting late, but first thing in the morning I shall help you to the truth. Or perhaps I am mistaken...

Just remember when you do, you will be talking to a 14th generation South African with black African blood in his veins. So when you advise me about family values you had better know what you are talking about.

MagnetMan wrote:

They want indoor plumbing and a washing machine to take the tedium out of their lives.

This is the only important moral problem of our times. Development has gone much too far already. Animal, plant and human life will not survive it much longer. You and I, we are of the last generation where 'wild' has a meaning.

Quote :

Going back to the ox-wagon is not an option.

It is still in wide use, so no problem here,

Quote :

Too many people demanding the good life.

Agree.

Quote :

And they deserve it.

No one deserves shit.

Quote :

And there is no reason we cannot give it to them.

*gasp* *gasp* Your last breaths of breathable air. You are middle-age I guess. So the both of us will suffocate under the same Venusian atmosphere in what? ten or fifteen years; if we survive the toxic poisoning, cancer, can find drinkable water...

Quote :

So when you advise me about family values you had better know what you are talking about.

I don't know. It's a speculation, one a four-year-old could make. It has nothing to do with family values.

Dako wrote:

MagnetMan wrote:

They want indoor plumbing and a washing machine to take the tedium out of their lives.

This is the only important moral problem of our times. Development has gone much too far already. Animal, plant and human life will not survive it much longer. You and I, we are of the last generation where 'wild' has a meaning.

It is nice to know that you care about the future.

There is nothing wrong with endless development.
The moral question is how do we go about it.
We are screwing up big time at the moment
and if we continue this way we are all dead meat.
There is nobody to blame
It is easy to quaterback on Monday morning.
The industrial revolution was an essential step in human development
Nobody knew at the start how much of a mess it would eventually make.

Even England and the rest of Europe
with its vast heritage of nobility
who knew about estate preservation
smogged out their cities into the 60's and 70's

America just forged ahead
without the advantage of noble estate leadership
that was one of the severe prices of a bloody revolution
killing brothers is an old story
it was never right
no matter what the reason

There are thousands of ways that we can improve
the way we manage the home planet
and increase our population at the same time
provided we all have the will to do it

But we have to work together
as a single family
all proud of the common global estate
in fact all of us in love
with Mother Irth

Once that happens
here comes the promised Eden
Heaven on Earth
with the planet running on her own energy
and her children all at play
the labor done
the wars over

We are caught in synapse
an old age is dying
a new age is birthing
it is a vulnerable moment
birth is generally painful and bloody
but always joyful
so I am optimistic
that we will weather the coming storm.

Quote :

Too many people demanding the good life.

Agree.

Quote :

And they deserve it.

No one deserves shit. [/quote]

Common, old man.
That is not fair.
The jetride to Los Angeles takes five hours.
The ox-wagon took five months.

Our ancestors gave me the game of golf
and the tool to smash a ball 300 yards
I owe them
big time

Quote :

And there is no reason we cannot give it to them.

Quote :

*gasp* *gasp* Your last breaths of breathable air. You are middle-age I guess. So the both of us will suffocate under the same Venusian atmosphere in what? ten or fifteen years; if we survive the toxic poisoning, cancer, can find drinkable water...

Like I said
a vulnerable moment
when all seems bleak

it will pass
I have God's promise on that

Quote :

So when you advise me about family values you had better know what you are talking about.

Quote :

I don't know. It's a speculation, one a four-year-old could make. It has nothing to do with family values.

Oh but it does.
Family values form the base of our culture
without that
we really are doomed.

MagnetMan wrote:

But we have to work together
as a single family

Before I go on, help me understand what you mean here. As,

51 “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Luke 12

Dako wrote:

MagnetMan wrote:

But we have to work together
as a single family

Before I go on, help me understand what you mean here. As,

51 “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Luke 12

I would say that division among men
has indeed come to pass
as foretold
now everyman has a conflicting opinion
about anything and everything
and it is bringing about a general realization
that increasing chaos results
the walls of Gomorrah
have already fallen
in a cloud of Wall Street dust.