Funding Subversion of National Security
[...]One example is the arms-control area. “They identify their best and brightest cadres interning in the arms-control and disarmament movement, give them Herbert Scoville Fellowships from the Council for a Livable World, subsidize their Ph.D.s and place them with like-minded mentors in senior government posts,” says Ronay, who authored the center’s study. “There are a number of them in the Clinton administration today with top-secret clearances, hired to run U.S. national security.
It’s like a presidential management internship program for the left. Their side rakes this very seriously and invests in it and acts on it. They understand that power lies not only in ideas but in people and programs. If you put enough into people and programs, especially media and pedagogy, you can sell bad ideas for long enough to bring dangerous results.”
The taxpayer-funded U.S. Institute of Peace targets high-school students with an annual essay contest on “peace” issues and has a fellowship program for graduate students to pursue “peace studies.”
The Council for a Livable World says that since 1987 it has mentored 71 graduate students into key activist, academic and government posts, including prominent defense contractors, the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA.
The MacArthur Foundation’s Next Generation Program has spent a staggering $100 million during the last 15 years to train more than 5,000 graduate students in the international-relations and security arena. That’s nearly an entire generational cohort: from academics, journalists and foreign-service officers to NGO executives.
In contrast, Ronay says, “Conservative groups have to go begging for donors and justify every expense in terms of what it has done today. Only a few seem to have the vision or sense of strategy it takes to look a generation or even a decade ahead.”
Most of the defense and security grantmaking from the large foundations manifests itself in four basic programs, according to the Center for Security Policy study: media, academia and cadre-building, international legalism and arms control/disarmament, and institution-building. contin..
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_31_16/ai_64566664/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
The post Bretton Woods system: 1971 – present
An alternative name for the post Bretton Woods system is the Washington Consensus. While the name was coined in 1989, the associated economic system came into effect years earlier: according to economic historian Lord Skidelsky the Washington Consensus is generally seen as spanning 1980–2009 (the latter half of the 1970s being a transitional period).[14] The transition away from Bretton Woods was marked by a switch from a state led to a market led system.[4] The Bretton Wood system is considered by economic historians to have broken down in the 1970s:[14] crucial events being Nixon suspending the dollar’s convertibility into gold in 1971, the United states abandonment of Capital Controls in 1974, and Great Britain’s ending of capital controls in 1979 which was swiftly copied by most other major economies.
In some parts of the developing world, liberalisation brought significant benefits for large sections of the population – most prominently with Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in China since 1978 and the liberalisation of India after her 1991 crisis. contin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_II#The_.22Revived_Bretton_Woods_system.22_identified_in_2003
http://www.brettonwoods.org/index.php/179/Leadership_Staff
“An alternative name for the post Bretton Woods system is the Washington Consensus.”
Anyone asked about this...?