Last Friday the world was stunned by Boris Berezovsky when it was reported by The Guardian that he claimed he was financing a revolution against Putin and that Putin could only be replaced by force. Berezovsky then claimed that he did not imply a bloody and violent revolution, but in other interviews he did explicitly state that violence is part of revolution and that should such a revolution occur that it would inevitably be violent. Instead of focusing on Berezovsky, how he and his fellow oligarchs economically raped Russia and why they are here, and his audacious claims over the weekend Britain has been forced to weep and sob into its cups of tea at the sad, heartbreaking news of Wills and Kate breaking up.
Now, back to Kasparov and The Other Russia.
I had a look at The Other Russia last month.
Its membership list is available for all to read at http://www.theotherrussia.ru/eng/list/
You will find several members of The National Endowment for Democracy, Richard Holbrooke of the CFR, NED and other NWO fronts, and Michael McFaul of The Carnegie Endowment for International
But it is the relatively large nunber of representatives from the NED that is highly suspicious. For all those who support Ron Paul for President, here is Paul writing for AntiWar.com on the NED;
From http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html
National Endowment for Democracy: Paying to Make Enemies of America
The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects "soft money" into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections "promoting democracy." How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?
In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, Barbara Conry notes that:
"NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements...
"...the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of 'promoting democracy.' Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED's detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls...
"...In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the most negative aspects of both private aid and official foreign aid – the pitfalls of decentralized 'loose cannon' foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the United States is trying to 'run the show' around the world."
The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the US taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.
Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.
Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:
Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ... which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former high-ranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas...
Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha's Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.
President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: "Without IRI's support we could not have come so far so fast." Indeed. Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister of Bulgaria and a leader of "reform."
In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that "IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign," adding that IRI efforts secured "a victory for reformers in Slovakia." What the IRI does not say is that many of these "reformers" had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?
More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected president, saying, "Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country." It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela's legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?
The National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.
What the NED does is support revolution in countries besides the USA and its Bilderberg-controlled allies under the banner of "Freedom and Democracy", and then manipulates to get an Anglo-American-friendly leader installed who will support war on other countries and sell its natural resources to the Anglo-Americans at bargain-basement prices.
In 1953 Mossadegh of Iran, voted Iranian of the Century by readers of The Iranian, was ousted after a revolution controlled by our good friends British and American Intelligence after Mossadegh had the cheek and audacity to want to use the profits from Iranian oil for Iranians.
50 years later Putin wants to use Russian oil and gas for Russians, and is now facing the wrath of and demonisation by the Anglo-Americans through the NED controlling The Other Russia, while Putin has an 80% rating amongst Russians.
One has to ask how has Putin got an 80% rating? And if so, who was at the protests last weekend?
It's OK for Berezovsky to advocate a violent revolution to overthrow Putin, but not OK to put down a protest supported by very few Russians and blatantly controlled by the warmongering, greedy Anglo-American Establishment? Due to the build up of the reporting for the protests last weekend I would not be surprised if there were agents provocateurs present provoking a photo opportunity.
Yes, there is a moral question being raised about the use of violence. Is it OK to use violence to save your country from the grips of the New World Order?
Let's get this into perspective; Know thy ruthless enemy.
They provoked, financed and profited from WW1.
They provoked, financed and profited from WW2, provoked and allowed the Pearl Harbour attack, dropped two atomic bombs unnecessarily on Japan and allowed the Holocaust to occur.
They executed 9/11, killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and are now looking for any excuse for a nuclear first strike on Iran.
If you're attacked you defend yourself, don't you? Or are you supposed to turn the other cheek while your country is economically raped, if not brutally invaded under the pretext of installing "freedom and democracy".
Who should control Russian oil and gas? Russia, or the genocidal New World Order? Is Kasparov just naive or in someones pocket?
But I have a question of the Russian (state-controlled) media: if I can print this about The Other Russia, have you?
1 comment:
Kasparov, The Pawn
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/15-04-2007/89760-kasparov-0
Garry Kasparov, arrested today near Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow for subversive activities, is the epitome of the big fish in the small pond which through its unfettered ambition, became a tiddler in the shark-infested waters of the Ocean. Garry Kasparov, the Grand Master of chess, is the political pawn who has sold his soul to the traitors who plot Russia’s demise and who in turn will leave him stranded after he fails to be elected.
One could add another short paragraph and end the article here, mentioning the fact that the whole “Other Russia” debacle is a sham, nothing more than the oligarchs who had put their hands on Russia’s resources and were prepared to mastermind the break-up of the Russian Federation in return for vast fortunes at the behest of the USA, oligarch-fraudsters and criminals who in turn were booted out by Putin and his Chekist Patriots, who now sense the March 2008 election looming up – without Putin – and want to position themselves to do the same again. Unable to do the dirty work themselves, they turn to the brilliant, incisive and energetic Garry Kasparov to be their front man.
Garry Kasparov is indeed the leader of a front, called Obyedinyonniy Grazhdanskiy Front, or United Civil/Citizens’ Front. However, today this wild-eyed Azeri Berezovsky supporter, calling the Russian (twice democratically elected) Government “criminal”, then “scared”, looked more like a street punk caught vandalising cars. He knowingly broke the law because he was aware that his demonstration was illegal, for it had been banned.
But what to expect from one who participates in a movement which includes Boris Berezovsky, who this week stated that Russia’s leadership could only be removed by force? What a great democratic front this must be! The fact is that Kasparov has become a victim of his own ambitions, which served him well on the chess board, but politics breeds successes – and failures.
Putin, a success
Whether Kasparov likes it or not, President Vladimir Putin has, at the very least, for the vast majority of the Russian people (although he would not know this because he is neither Russian, nor does he live in Russia), provided them with stability and economic security. Full stop.
For a start, President Putin was democratically elected, twice. His intelligent yet firm policy has steadied the potentially volatile situation in Russia’s border regions. His foreign policy, underlining the need for a multipolar world using multilateral approaches to crisis management and following the precepts of international law is approved almost unanimously in the international community. His economic policy has brought stability and wealth to a growing and dynamic middle class. Russian companies are today major players on the world stage. Inflation has been controlled, Russian teachers today receive their salaries at the end of the month, the shops are full of the widest range of products visible anywhere in the globe, GDP is growing steadily and Russia has paid off the major part of its foreign debt. Add to that the return of the rule of law and not mob rule and we see that in short, Vladimir Putin has hauled a country on the verge of a deep crisis under the shambling wreck, Eltsin, placing it once again in the front line of development and re-affirming it as a world power.
This is why the Russian people voted for Vladimir Putin not once, but twice, with clear majorities. This is a process which is called democracy. Moreover, the Russian people would vote for Putin for a third time if he could be a candidate in March 2008.
Kasparov, the pawn
Yet is this the Russia that Kasparov wants? Apparently not, since he stands for everything which does not represent the Russian democratically-elected Government, even if this means having communists and fascists in his entourage, or perhaps even the Demon himself. Communists, fine. Fascists – not everyone’s choice but democracy at least provides for an alternative based on coherence. But how can Kasparov be called coherent when he, a non-Russian, as the front man of “The Other Russia”, represents anything or anyone, even political opposites, which can promote his personal agenda, since he has never produced a political one?
What does Kasparov stand for? What are his policies? He does not have any. He is simply anti. Anti what? Everything. He always was. Those who follow chess remember the chaos wrought on this hitherto calm and conservative backwater infested by bespectacled and intelligent nerds moving pieces around a board, kicking their opponents’ legs, taking frequent trips to the toilet and looking so intense they could have been prime contenders on an advertisement for anti-constipation products. The International Chess Federation, FIDE, was never the same after Kasparov became irate with the entire system and tried to set up an alternative one, turning a respected game with a professional image into a bickering gaggle of grandmothers.
The only policy matters he is quoted as saying are obscure references to Russia’s Government, complaining that Russia is in the G8, stating that the USA should have dominated the world in the 1990s and little else. Indeed, with this Azeri lover of Made in USA, who served as a member of the Advisory Council for National Security of the USA, setting up pro-Washington regimes in post-Soviet space, who needs the CIA?
What is “The Other Russia”? What is Kasparov?
Simply this, the “other” Russia - and Kasparov. The “Other Russia” is the unholiest of crusades, including the traitors who Putin swept from power, breaking their grip on Russia’s resources and returning these to their rightful owners – the Russian people – not Berezovsky, Guzinsky and Khodorkovsky, their anti-Russian playmakers and their pawn, Kasparov, the Azeri.
The Other Russia is as absurd a gang of misfits and loony toons as the political stage of any country has ever seen – the banned National Bolshevik Party, complete with its Nazi-type insignia, fraudsters such as Berezovsky, the one who sits in London along with the Chechen terrorist Zakaev, whose forces were none other than the Butchers of Beslan, failed pro-Washington politicians such as Kasyanov (People’s Patriotic Union), nationalists, socialists... and Kasparov. Oh, and according to the latter, also the Communists by the end of the year.
Any possible agenda which could unite this army of criminals and political mercenaries is logically non-existent. Therefore they stain the noble precept of democracy with their diatribes and make fools of themselves while trying to score points with the Russophobic elements in the international community.
Yet who was the first Russian President to set up a system of open press conferences? Who was the first Russian President to field questions posed openly by citizens in his periodic and regular phone-ins? Who was responsible for drawing up legislation to define the role of - and protect - the NGOs in Russia. Who was democratically elected, twice?
And who is Kasparov? While the Russian people strive to build a better country with improved conditions (after the leaders of The Other Russia destroyed the state during the 1990s), this Azeri sits amidst his western habits in his millionnaire apartment in Manhattan, New York, and speaks to foreign journalists about “dismantling” Russia’s government.
Fortunately, this mottley army of deviants, criminals, wannabe politicians, fraudsters and gangsters on the fringes of Russian society will only see the Kremlin from the Aleksandrovsky Garden. Some of them perhaps through an alcoholic haze, others through a wishful gaze.
In Kasparov’s case, it may be from a bench with a chess board in front of him, where he exerts his tremendous intelligence on the 64 squares and 32 pieces in front of him. Yes, 32, because he will not find anyone willing to sit and play with him, so he will have to play with himself.
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru
Post a Comment