Humanitarianism and charity can't always be taken at face value, if only because there is no better front for less-than-altruistic endeavors. Islamic charities, for example, have been exposed as fronts for terrorist funding. Most people simply assume that charity automatically equates to goodwill.
Set up a
non-governmental organization (NGO) or "think-tank" with
a dreamy humanitarian name to ultimately funnel cash
into various forms of political subversion and
disruption, and you've just created the perfect
instrument for the perpetual incitement of low-intensity
political conflict.
Low-intensity operations are insidious because they
occur at a level just below the threshold that triggers
acute opposition. Much like the ignored second hand of
an analog clock, these low-intensity operations subtly
effect change. Russian President Vladimir Putin knows
this, which is why he rammed through a law in 2012
requiring NGOs that receive foreign funding and are
engaged in "political activity" to register as foreign
agents. Predictably, people complained that it wasn't a
very nice thing to do to all the well-meaning
humanitarians.
Soros' Open Society Foundations have funded millions of
dollars of operations in Georgia, Ukraine and Russia.
The only one of those countries that hasn't experienced
total anti-Russian upheaval followed by a return to a
more balanced geopolitical reality is Russia itself --
which the foundations are constantly complaining about.
In May, Soros wrote in The Guardian that Europe should
offer "free political risk insurance" to companies that
invest or do business in Ukraine, and "guarantee the
losses in the same way as they underwrite the World
Bank." This was his great offering to humanity in the
wake of that crisis.
Yeah, nice try. Fourteen percent of Soros' stock
portfolio, according to the investment website
GuruFocus.com, consists of energy investments -- the
likes of which would benefit from entry into Ukraine's
underexploited domestic market. To put that into
plain-speak for those of us who aren't among the richest
people on the planet, it's like saying that the
government should offer me "hunger risk insurance" and
guarantee me a lifetime of free dining at taxpayer
expense.
Why on earth would we taxpayers want to subsidize Soros'
stock portfolio? According to Soros, it's necessary "to
counteract Russia's efforts to destabilize Ukraine." Tu
quoque. Russia was satisfied with its monopoly in
Ukraine and not much interested in doing anything to
disrupt it.
So, where else is Soros sticking his fingers? He gave $1
million in humanitarian aid to Syria through the
International Rescue Committee, which, according to Eric
Thomas Chester's book "Covert Network: Progressives, the
International Rescue Committee and the CIA," has worked
closely with the Central Intelligence Agency in various
parts of the world over the past several decades.
On the domestic front, Obama-appointed regulatory
decision-makers ranging from Daniel Tarullo (the Federal
Reserve's informally designated lead governor for
banking regulations) to Amias Gerety (who chairs the
Financial Stability Oversight Council committee
responsible for designating the entities to undergo the
"too big to fail" regulatory straitjacketing process)
are products of the Soros-funded Center for American
Progress. Soros told the Wall Street Journal in 2010
that he was unhappy with President Obama's bailouts and
instead wanted to see U.S. banks nationalized and taken
over by the government. Many argue that strict new
Dodd-Frank regulations effectively achieve this.
The Center for American Progress is also churning out
pro-amnesty pieces about America's current
undocumented-immigrant crisis.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Open Society Foundations
website has been advertising grants available for
organizations interested in fighting against "Islamophobia"
and "anti-Gypsyism" -- the sort of issues that only
totally open borders in Europe could possibly fix, of
course.
Not to speculate on possible motives behind supporting a
flood of undocumented workers, but it would certainly
serve to depress working wages to the benefit of
oligarchs such as Soros -- a concern noted in a recent
report from the Congressional Budget Office.
In Africa, the slippery slope from humanitarianism to
profit has been much steeper and more obvious, with the
Open Society Foundations moving from helping prostitutes
in the resource-rich Great Lakes Region -- comprising
Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya,
Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda -- to commissioning reports
with titles such as "Energy Policy and the Petroleum
Industry Bill."
Hmmm. You won't convince the good-hearted naifs of the
world to join forces with a multibillionaire to enrich
his bottom line through low-intensity disruption
operations -- er, I mean, to "save the world" -- with
profiteering titles like that.
Russian oligarchs are effectively accountable to Putin
as the elected leader of the country. To whom are our
oligarchs accountable?