www.earthfiles.de

[Solve et Coagula]

Russia/China beware of CIA-NGO's and "Charity Funds" (Non-Governmental-Organizations)

These alleged "humanitarian organisations" are CIA/NSA/MOSSAD/ROTHSCHILD/ZIONIST cover ups, as you can see if you put them under strict control, as it happens now in Russia, they start to blame you as countries were foreign investments aren't safe... They further will blame you as dictatorships were human rights doesnt count - to finally asperse your image worldwide. One strategy for you could be to start blaming them for what they really are...

WELL-PAID DEFENSE OF THEIR RIGHTS

They’re well-paid by western, mainly American charity funds. But not all the organizations are paid by American funds. They granted only those groups which support them who’s needed. If an organizaton defends the rights of them, who isn’t needed, e.g. Latvian Committee defending the rights of Russians or Russian-speaking people living in Latvia – it’s not granted. Such organisations are called... “Communist”! (O. A. Popov, “Moskva”, #1, 2004, http://www.moskvam.ru/).

It’s not so necessary for managers of American funds to announce their preferences publicly – Russian human rights know by theirselves who “needs or needn’t defense”. For example, the Chairman of International Helsinki Federation (IHF) L. M. Alekseyeva “knows” them. She and the rest of the leaders of IHF advised Serbian human rights activists in an open letter not to blame NATO bombings, even at the time when NATO bombs had been dropping on their heads (http://www.ihf.org/). But what should she do if six of the ten donors of IHF were the “charity” funds managed by the governments of the countries–members of NATO? Moreover, American Human Rights Watch financed by George Soros, collecting “materials on genocide and ethnical sweeps” in Bosnia and Kosovo is a member of this International Helsinki Federation. And George Soros himself is a member of the Board of Directors of IHF.

In this article the goals and motives of American funds to grant Russian non-governmental organizations (NGO) including human rights organizations are discussed. There is also a brief reference to the history, “philosophy”, annual budgets and leaders of some big American funds which traditionally granted Russian human rights organizations.


CHARITY FUNDS – WHO NEEDS THEM?
American charity funds may be classified as big (the Ford Foundation with its annual budget of 598 million dollars of grants and donations) and (or) small (J. M. Kaplan Fund with a budget of $ 6,9 million).

You may divide charity funds according to the type of corporations which invest them into “industrial” (the Ford Foundation) and “financial” (the Soros Foundations Network). They also may be “liberal” (e.g. managed by Soros) or “conservative” (e.g. Scaife Foundations), financing “neo-cons”; of a “general type” or “special”, financing only one of the spheres (only defense of human rights or preservation of nature.

It’s also appropriate to classify “charity” funds as governmental or private. The majority of them are, of course, private. The number of private funds is, as specialists counted, more than 2000, the number of governmental ones is easy countable; it reflects American approach to financing non-commercial sphere. Originally charity funds were intended to release the government from supporting non-profitable spheres – science, art, preservation of nature, solution of the problems of homeless etc. Earliest of them were established at the beginning of XX century by Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford and their goals lay within these spheres; their activities were aimed at solving interior problems.

Joan Roelofs, a well-known researcher of charity funds called the three reasons of establishing funds and investing them the capitals of American billionaires (Joan Roelofs, “Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism”, SUNY Press, Albany, Feb. 2003). The first reason was purely financial – decrease of income that causes decrease of income tax. The second – to create an instrument for permanent influence on social-cultural atmosphere of the society and by means of that to enforce their control over the society. The third – to improve their image that is very important in terms of competitive economy.

Continue to read:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/050126154646