Why does this diary not even attempt to address the points I made in mine?

I have no interest in Voltaire or in Stevesim's take on this. They're hardly relevant here.

But I don't need to reference them to find clear and unarguable evidence that Sharp is:

1. Not a progressive, and not promoting progressive values. His links to the DOD and the content of his books make that clear. As far as he's concerned, tyranny is communism and socialism. It can't possibly come from the US.

2. Pretending to be progressive to create a fake narrative that gives his work progressive support. We have Gandhi, we have Einstein, we have MLK, we have "democracy", and we have a dog-whistle title for a technique that hints at pacifism.

But where is Sharp's support for progressive causes in the West? What is he doing for the people of Wisconsin, or (potentially) Greece and Ireland who need democratic government that won't try to sell them like chattels to the IMF and ECB? Where is the persistent AEI support for the regimes taken over by the US and ruled by violent puppet dictators for decades?

Really, anyone who still thinks Sharp is any way a progressive needs to ask themselves why he and Helvey have done nothing for victims of US-sponsored torture gangs and death squads - and apparently have no interest in them, except on those rare occasions when the US decides that its old puppets are a liability and need to be replaced.

3. Only promoting non-violence to the extent that his idea of violence is using civilians and PR methods for regime change rather than bullets and explosives. Which might seem appealing, if you like that kind of thing - except for point 4.

4. Promoting methods that cannot work independently, and in fact only work at all with external-state support that is some mix of financial, strategic, and practical aid. (But which is also conveniently small-scale and deniable.)

5. Lying about how his organisation is supported. E.g. he states regularly that he has never received government cash, when in fact AEI has been funded by the NED. (Which technically may not be a direct federal hand-out, but practically is as close as dammit when NED is funded directly by Congress.)

When I ask geezer for a factual rebuttal to some earlier comments, he ignored that request.

Now he's posted this diary which ignores further evidence and tries to imply that any factual criticism of Sharp is equivalent to a wacky conspiracy theory.

And this is "honest inquiry"?

Nice try, but no.