Today I was minding my own business, reading Johnson's Russia list and shaking my head, as always, and I came upon this: a letter ostensibly from Jack Kemp and Senator John Edwards, representing the Council of Foreign Relations Russia Project (or something to that effect). I read it and proceeded to bang my head against the desk for about 20 minutes or so, and then, still not satisfied, read "Ivan's Nightmare," near the end of The Brothers Karamazov. That made me feel better, or at least, good enough to write this column. Part of the letter reads thusly:
As you may know, members of President Putin's party and other fractions of the State Duma introduced legislation last week that would, among other things, keep foreign NGO's from maintaining "representative offices" or branches in Russia and deny foreign funds to Russian organizations that engage in (undefined) "political" activities. Virtually the entire non-profit sector from human-rights monitors to policy think-tanks, even public-health alliances is likely to be affected.The impact of this measure, if it became law, should be obvious: it would roll back pluralism in Russia and curtail contact between our societies. It would mark a complete breach of the commitment to strengthen such contact that President Putin made when you and he met in Bratislava on February 24, 2005. And it raises an almost unthinkable prospect that the president of Russia might serve as chairman of the G-8 at the same time that laws come into force in his country to choke off contacts with global society. This piece of legislation is all the more disturbing to us because it does not come out of nowhere. It is part of the clear negative pattern of growing state control over society, about which you and Secretary Rice have properly raised America's concern.
The creation of modern political, social, and economic institutions in Russia is a truly historic process, and both countries will be the losers if it is cut short. Russian officials and legislators are, of course, likely to insist that they are doing no more than blocking political interference in their internal affairs. Even with its unsettling echoes of Soviet times, we recognize this as a legitimate interest. But if the only issue were how to protect the integrity of Russiaˇ¦s electoral process and political campaigns, the problem would be easily solved. Other countries, including our own, do so without encroaching on fundamental freedoms. The aim of the proposed legislation, to judge by the way its sponsors talk about it, is clearly far broader. Senior Russian officials have described their own NGO's as a "fifth column" in Russian society and even as fronts for foreign intelligence services. If this proposal comes into force, the government will clearly have in its hands the authority to close down public organizations simply because it finds their views and activities inconvenient.
Lets talk facts, for once. First, the CFR is an association, arising out of the British Roundatables, that is the institutionalization of oligarchs in America. It was founded and is still chaired by Mr. Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan fame, and its membership consists of elites from every sector of American society. In short, it is the ruling class of the ruling class. And yes, I am also struck by the fact that Mr. Johnson is now their messenger, so don't write me to say so.
Jack Kemp, who knows little of Russia, is being used by various elements of the neocon establishment In D.C. to do their speaking and public appearances. He mine as well be a hologram. Neither of the men whose names appear on this letter know the first thing about Russian history of politics, but that has certainly not stopped anyone before. He, nor Senator Edwards, wrote the letter nor had anything to do with it except to promulgate it.
Anyone who knows anything about the CFR or its agenda should be laughing himself sick: the elites of global society complaining that someone is actually doing something about their unearned wealth, near dictatorial power and absolute control over the global economy. The CFR is infinitely more powerful than George Bush, Putin or any other global figure. They are a shadowy organization using almost exclusively, informal channels to control much of the globe. They are the absolute opposite of what they're advocating for Russia.
This letter is rather damning for Russian liberals and their hangers on in the English speaking world. It proves, once and for all, that the global ruling class hates Putin, and, furthermore, that they want to use their immense and inhuman amounts of money to alter Russia to suit their personal, psychological, economic and political needs and whims. This is the very substance of liberalism in Russia.
Here are the people who not only fund Russian "liberalism," but have created it out of whole cloth: this is the membership list for the "Russia Project" of the Council on Foreign Relations:
The Economist (December 3-9, 2005), had this to say about Putin's Russia:
Squint, just a bit, and it could almost be that the cold war never ended. Russia's relations with America and Europe have turned frostier since Ukraine's "orange" revolution a year ago wrested a rigged election from Vladimir Putin's preferred candidate. Since then, Mr Putin has turned his orange-tinted pique on Poland (Ukraine's supporter) and his Baltic neighbours, openly backed the bloody suppression of democracy protests in Uzbekistan, and let it be known that Russia will "stand by" Iran and Syria, fending off UN sanctions.At home, Mr Putin's allies have proposed a new law to throttle foreign-financed NGOs and subject Russian ones to Soviet-style bureaucratic harassment. And he is sticking more cronies on the boards of key companies not already under his control. All this makes Mr Putin's Russia an awkward partner for the West.
There is an added awkwardness, too: Russia is shortly to become chairman-for-a-year of the G8 group of (until Russia joined the original G7) rich, market-driven democracies. The G8 is not the world-steering mechanism its members like to think it is. But, elevated prematurely to membership in hopes of encouraging it towards greater democracy and economic reform, Russia has done less and less to earn its place. The true picture is not entirely bleak. Russia is not reverting to communism. Its economy, though increasingly manipulated, is still open for private business. Though Mr Putin regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union, earlier this year he called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,"he is more nouveau tsar than commissar. Nor is there anything wrong with Russia pursuing its own foreign-policy interests in relations with America or Europe. The real problem for Russia is how narrowly Mr Putin defines those interests. That, and his increasing crankiness with those who challenge him, which compounds the mistake.
In many respects, this piece of the editorial sums up most of what the bulk of "Russia watchers" in America and England have been saying for some time. Keep in mind, however, that The Economist, as some say, is the mouthpiece of the Rothschild financial empire, who funds many NGOs in Russia seeking the overthrow of Putin, as well as being business partners with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Therefore, their objectivity is seriously in doubt. However, let's do some boilerplate argumentation here, hopefully clearing the air for those not entirely brainwashed by Regime propaganda on Russia.
But first, let's cite a few sources of polling data on Russian democracy, and what the Russian people (I detest such abstractions) say about it:
A desire to return to a single-party system is currently being expressed by a highly significant proportion (38%) of Russian citizens (Levada-Center figures). Expressions of support for a single strong party most frequently come from CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) and United Russia supporters (44% and 42% respectively), as well as over half of those who vote "against all." Only 4% of citizens are certain of the need for a large number of parties.Sixty-seven percent of Russians said that they regretted the end of the USSR, far more than the 55 percent of Belarusians, 52 percent of Ukrainians and 41 percent of Kazakhstanis who expressed that view. A far higher percentage of Russians said they "unqualifiedly" regretted the USSR's end (42 percent) than did the others.
Furthermore,
Only 17 percent of Belarusians, 10 percent of Ukrainians and 12 percent of Kazakhstanis said they would like to see a renewed Soviet Union, but at the same time, only 25 percent of Belarusians, 20 percent of Ukrainians and 33 percent of Kazakhstanis said they wanted their states to remain separate from others.
All of these figures are damning for Regime propaganda and its backers. These figures have been widely circulated around Russia, but have only a limited hearing in the West (Johnson's Russia List did the right thing in reporting them).
Of course, these figures completely contradict, ideologically speaking, the pompous squealings of the Rothschilds and their pet journalists. Here are a few conclusions to be drawn from the data:
1. Russians care about results, not procedures. Of course, so do the Rothschilds, which makes the prattlings about abstract procedural "democracy" so meaningless.
2. Russians love strong leaders, not bureaucratic political parties or abstract procedures. There is nothing wrong with this from a moral point of view. Russia is a state under siege from all directions. It seems natural, then, for this preference for strong individual leadership to be very pronounced.
3. The only rigging done in the Ukrainian election of 2004 was from foreigners and Yushchenko. It turns out that Yanukovytch was the true representative of Ukrainian opinion after all. Given the nature of the 2004 campaign, this polling data cannot be squared with the results, when only 20 percent of Ukrainians want separate statehood. It is one thing to demand independence from a decaying USSR, another altogether to want separation from an increasingly prosperous Russia.. Further, the issue over foreign NGOs is underscored by Berezovsky's temper tantrum at the Ukrainian government when the latter denied the Orange Revolution was funded by him. The dethroned emperor was livid that he did not get the "credit" for funding the sour Oranges.
Therefore, with this in mind, it remains clear that the bulk of foreign NGOs, ultimately funded by a handful of foreign oligarchs such as George Soros, The Carnegie Institute(s), The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, Citibank and a few others, are actively working against the wishes of the Russian and other Slavic people. NGO bill exist for one reason and one reason alone, to restrict the efforts of the globe's billionaires from thwarting elections and political processes that invariable bring nationalists to power. Yushchenko in Ukraine was not elected. Vote rigging was far more prominent in the west than in the east, and his ultimate victory was assured by violent protests funded by the very NGOs Putin and the bulk of Russia want to see restricted. So far, the loudest voices against the NGO bill are precisely those institutions that have the most to lose by it.
What I said back in May of 2005, at the beginning of this project, gets starker and starker by the day: this is nothing less than a battle against nationalism, represented by Putin, Rodina and Lukashenko (with substantial portions of the various Orthodox churches), against the global oligarchy who wants little else than a weak Russia, ripe for economic rape and exploitation. Ultimately, the goal of these forces, represented in Russia by the NGOs, is a Russia open to the unhindered exploitation of her educated population, natural resources and military technology for the benefit of the western elite. There is no other issue available here.
Today, again, Human Rights Watch released a circular on the topic of topics in the west concerning Russia. The succession to Putin? The economy? No, the bill to limit the influence of billionaires in Russian politics through their fronts, the so called "NGOs," or non-governmental organizations. Of course, NGO is a code for The Carnegie Corporation, the institution that controls Human Rights Watch, at least as concerns its Russia project. Nearly all the worldˇ¦s billionaires have created "Russia projects" of some sort or other.
The very undergirding of the assumptions that NGOs are somehow separated from the true sources of political power have necessitated a decades-long campaign that repression and control can only come from the state. Of course, the state is an instrument of the billionaires, not the other way around. The reality is that the propaganda emanating from the NGO fronts is far more insidious, far more "slick" and thus more effective than anything coming from the state. The state apparat in modern times is a rather inferior method of coercion when contrasted with "independent" sources of money and thus, power.
Some of the actual mechanisms of control at the disposal of the NGO fronts include the creation of code phrases such as "civil society," the funding of ever-malleable academics, manipulating and funding political candidates, the creation of political movements such as Pora (a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros), creating and funding lobbying organizations, and , in short, to create an entire intellectual infrastructure that supports the agenda of those who fund the organizations in question. The entire "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine was the creation of NGOs, largely those controlled by Soros.
The reality is, therefore, that NGOs are the front groups for the globe's elite, and they create and manipulate these pressure groups to alter the political climate in a target country to ease their way into the local markets, and then protect themselves and their allies while inside. (Keep in mind that this bill to limit the Sorosian projects is wildly popular in Russia right now, and foreigners better keep a low profile if they know what's good for them)
Here is part of the circular:
"This law signals a new chapter in the government's crackdown on civil society institutions," said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Now that the Kremlin has neutralized other checks and balances, NGOs remain among the last independent voices that can criticize the government and demand accountability in Russia."Only one problem, according to all polls, the Russians don't think Putin has done enough to increase his power, and are demanding he run for a third term, even if he has to alter the constitution to do it. Again, there are no surprises, here are the board of directors of the Carnegie Corporation, who fund and control HRW's Russia project:In the new briefing paper, "Managing Civil Society: Are NGOs Next?" Human Rights Watch analyses how the Kremlin eliminated most independent media, destroyed regional elites as a political force, installed a pliant parliament, and undermined the independence of the judiciary. The draft law comes against the backdrop of these deliberately attempts to dismantle the system of checks and balances to President Vladimir Putin' power.
Frankly, I like this latter list better, for all major media are listed. That shows, once and for all, the conflict of interest in liberal opinion on Russia. Of course, the positions taken by Carnegie/HRW are precisely those that would enhance the positions of the extreme-leftists at Newsweek or the New York Times. Now, of course, in Russia, all American media are freely disseminated, but, in this case, these organizations can now lobby for political power as well, political power completely outside the "checks and balances" Carnegie/HRW are hypocritically complaining over. What is most humorous is the fact that the power that is in the hands of the men and women listed in these two lists is that it is completely outside of said "checks and balances," and only a few actually are aware of those who control and fund these institutions (though their names are, in fact, public). The power that these people wield is far more significant than that offered by the state, and far more significant in terms of the creation and manipulation of public opinion, and the fact is, that there are no "checks and balances" to the Carnegie/HRW financial complex, except, of course, the bill that has now passed the lower house, that in creating checks and balances against the billionaires and their NGO fronts.
Significantly, Putin is taking this action, in concert with the Russian people who support the measure upwards of 80%, as people are already gearing up for the major western push to unseat whoever Putin endorses as his successor. Without NGOs funding candidates and creating political organizations, the western push will fizzle, leading the Russian people to actually make up their own minds on who should be President (which, at the present moment, is Putin.). Without Soros and the Carnegie/HRW financial complex creating political groups and candidates, whoever will challenge Putin's endorsee will end up with Yabloko's 1% of the vote. (Pro-western/capitalist parties in Russia, despite millions in western money, both state and NGO, can only poll about 3 or 4% of the vote combined). Therefore, this issue will heat up over the next year. The ability of NGOs to manipulate poll results and create new institutions is central to the State Department's agenda in Russia for 2008. Therefore, this bill is central and of extreme significance.