What the Carnegie Moscow Center is hiding and how it rules

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The Russian branch of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace took the form of the Carnegie Moscow Center and penetrated into Russia at the peak of its systemic crisis under Yeltsin - in 1993, when the Supreme Soviet was shot from tanks, having secured the consent of the "civilized world" and the "international community."

At the beginning of the twentieth century, American capital has already become global, having gone out in its unquenchable expansion beyond the national borders of the United States, where it collided with British, German and French capital. This process was well described by V. I. Lenin in his work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism".

USA flag

Jorge elías

It was then that in the United States, the "sharks of capitalism" took care of the creation of think tanks offering theories for expansion, understood as a well-formed total intervention, from the export of ideas to the formation of the ruling class, political systems and social institutions in other countries.

So, in 1910, the so-called Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was created in the United States. Since then, all the American funds created to finance the intellectual support of the banal US intervention in all countries rich in resources they need have been called all kinds of "funds for all good and against all bad."

Andrew Carnegie, multimillionaire, founder of the Foundation

The think tanks of the United States have become an important part of the network - a strategy of network wars for the export of the liberal revolution, understood as the formation of American puppet regimes in all countries of the world with a powerful multi-level system of brainwashing the elites and the population with the American value system.

The Russian branch of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace took the form of the Carnegie Moscow Center and penetrated into Russia at the peak of its systemic crisis under Yeltsin - in 1993, when the Supreme Soviet was shot from tanks, having secured the consent of the "civilized world" and the "international community."

The purpose of the foundation and the Moscow Center is to conduct independent research in the field of international relations (the most interesting here is the word "independent"). I wonder if an independent study is written in a style critical of US imperialism, it has a chance to see the light of day, and the work of an analyst will be paid? The question, of course, is naive, but the word "independent" is an obligatory PR attribute of all Western NGOs created for propaganda under the guise of research.

The New Vision division of the Carnegie Endowment was created in 2007, announced as the world's first international and, in the future, a global think tank. Both New Vision and the Carnegie Moscow Center directly recruit agents of influence in each country by sending test lists of 30-40 questions to candidates. By the nature of the responses, they determine the degree of suitability of the candidate, who must send information to Washington every week about those areas where he is competent.

Carnegie Endowment. Washington

AgnosticPreachersKid

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsors American and European private foundations, TNCs such as Chevron, BP - North America, General Motors, the Ford, Soros, Rockefeller foundations, the US State Department, the French Foreign Ministry, the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Energy, National Intelligence Committee, UK Department for International Development, and many others.

Such is the "roof" of the Carnegie Moscow Endowment, such is their "independent" analyst. If they want peace, then all is desirable.

And this very Moscow Carnegie Endowment has recently released one of its many products: the report "Five Putin's Elites Against the Background of Transit". As it turned out, this is a rather boring read, containing no new information. Considerably inferior in cognitive texture to the same report by E. Minchenko on "Politburo 2.0".

But along with this, it is quite clear that the report has a very clear purpose: to speak out negatively about the "siloviki" and "guardians", calling them "conservatives", and to make numerous hints and advances to the "technocrats", which are named in a series of words such as "Liberalism", "modern" and "progress".

First of all, the thesis "conservatives" is controversial. For those who are so named by the author are not fighting for conservation and not for regression, but for progress, only they understand it differently - as the elimination of the influence of the West. But the author cannot say instead of "conservatives" the word "anti-Westerners" or even patriots: such a position is too popular in Russia, and this will no longer be denigrating opponents, but praise and advertising.

The reason for such selections is simple: the siloviki are ideological people, and over the past five years they have significantly strengthened their positions in the state, and the technocrats, the "tabula race", are a blank board on which you can write whatever you want. Yes, they are not Westernizers, they have no ideas (the so-called "empty vessel" where you can pour something), but they are potentially closer to the West than ideological security officials and guardians. And thus it is a suitable field for work.

The target audience of the Carnegie Moscow Center is Russian experts and elites. They are the ones who will read this boring message to the end, hoping to find there something useful for themselves. Perhaps they will be imbued with some ideas after reading emotional theses, lined up in a certain sequence of semantic rows. The discussion will continue - someone will answer and thereby prevent the “spiral of silence” around this product. And the answers have already been sent. Thus, the purpose of the article has been partially achieved.

The priests' smacking begins with the use of a very controversial classification: the headline "Five Putin's Elites" is a journalistic provocation to attract attention, not a serious sociological group. First of all, because it contains overlapping criteria: "Putin's retinue" (in fact, the management apparatus engaged in organizing his work and security) contains the criteria of the group "friends and associates", or rather, its subgroups - "state managers" and "political technocrats" …

William Joseph Burns, President of the Carnegie Endowment, Former US Ambassador to Russia

The group of "Putin's friends and associates" is divided into three subgroups: "state oligarchs", "state managers" and "private business" and have common characteristics. Many of the "state managers" end up in "Putin's retinue," in the sense that the author puts it in this word.

Technocratic performers overlap with government managers. And Medvedev and Kozak, referred to the group of state managers, fully correspond to the concept of "retinue", because they are part of Putin's inner circle, and Medvedev still falls into the category of "friends and associates."

In a word, such exaggerations and such blatant subjectivity are allowed in the classification of groups that this makes the classification not a scientific value, but a journalistic technique, when the answer is adjusted to the task, that is, they write frank order … Thus, transferring material from the sphere of independent and objective research into the sphere of banal propaganda.

But the culmination by all the rules is in the third quarter of the material - there are the "guardians" - the main "culprits" of the appearance of the report. These are Patrushev, Naryshkin, Bastrykin, Zolotov, Bortnikov, Prigozhin, the Kovalchuk brothers. Shoigu and Lavrov are not included here, for some reason they were placed in the group of "state managers", although Shoigu is definitely a "guardian" - and even may well be referred to the group "retinue" due to the president's trust in him.

Compromise and defamation of "siloviks" and "guardians" in general is devoted to the entire super task of the article. This is what should settle in the subconscious. But for a safety net, to influence the most slow-witted, but susceptible, these theses are also spoken directly, a suggestive apparatus is used. The heading "Transit and the Great Elite Split" is highlighted in huge letters.

The trick here is that you don't understand whether these terms are opposed or mutually related? Is "I" in this case a dividing union or a uniting one? The subconscious mind reads this as a union, and this is already an NLP technique, pure manipulation of the audience's subconscious. Here is what the author writes in the final part:

President's visit

So, in November 1963, Kennedy arrived in Texas. This trip was planned as part of the preparatory campaign for the 1964 presidential election. The head of state himself noted that it is very important for him to win in Texas and Florida. In addition, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was a local and the travel to the state was emphasized.

But the representatives of the special services were afraid of the visit. Literally a month before the president's arrival, Adlai Stevenson, the US representative to the UN, was attacked in Dallas. Earlier, during one of Lyndon Johnson's performances here, he was booed by a crowd of … housewives. On the eve of the President's arrival, leaflets with the image of Kennedy and the inscription "Wanted for Betrayal" were posted around the city. The situation was tense, and troubles awaited. True, they thought that demonstrators with placards would take to the streets or throw rotten eggs at the president, no more.

Local authorities were more pessimistic. In his book The Assassination of President Kennedy, William Manchester, a historian and journalist who chronicled the assassination attempt at the request of the President's family, writes: “Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes feared incidents, Attorney Burfoot Sanders, senior Justice Department official in this part of Texas and the vice president’s spokesman in Dallas told Johnson’s political adviser Cliff Carter that given the city’s political atmosphere, the trip seemed "inappropriate." The city officials had trembling knees from the very beginning of this trip. The wave of local hostility towards the federal government had reached a critical point, and they knew it."

But the pre-election campaign was approaching, and they did not change the presidential travel plan. On November 21, a presidential plane landed at the airport of San Antonio (Texas' second most populous city). Kennedy attended Air Force Medical School, went to Houston, spoke at the university there, and attended a Democratic Party banquet.

The next day, the President went to Dallas. With a difference of 5 minutes, the vice president's plane arrived at Dallas Love Field airport, and then Kennedy's. At about 11:50 am, the motorcade of the first persons moved towards the city. The Kennedys were in the fourth limousine. In the same car with the President and the First Lady were US Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, agent William Greer was driving.

Three shots

It was originally planned that the motorcade would travel in a straight line on Main Street - there was no need to slow down on it. But for some reason, the route was changed, and the cars drove along Elm Street, where cars had to slow down. In addition, on Elm Street, the motorcade was closer to the educational store, from where the shooting was carried out.

Shots rang out at 12:30. Eyewitnesses took them either for the claps of a cracker, or for the sound of the exhaust, even the special agents did not immediately find their bearings. There were three shots in total (although even this is controversial), the first was Kennedy wounded in the back, the second bullet hit the head, and this wound became fatal. Six minutes later, the motorcade arrived at the nearest hospital, at 12:40 the president died.

The prescribed forensic medical research, which had to be done on the spot, was not carried out. Kennedy's body was immediately sent to Washington.

Workers at the training store told police that the shots were fired from their building. Based on a series of testimonies, an hour later, Police Officer Tippit attempted to detain warehouse worker Lee Harvey Oswald. He had a pistol with which he shot Tippit. As a result, Oswald was still captured, but two days later he also died. He was shot by a certain Jack Ruby while the suspect was being taken out of the police station. Thus, he wanted to "justify" his hometown.

So, by November 24, the president was assassinated, and so was the prime suspect. Nevertheless, in accordance with the decree of the new President Lyndon Johnson, a commission was formed, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States of America Earl Warren. There were seven people in total. For a long time, they studied the testimony of witnesses, documents, and in the end they concluded that a lone killer had attempted to assassinate the president. Jack Ruby, in their opinion, also acted alone and had exclusively personal motives for the murder.

Under suspicion

To understand what happened next, you need to travel to New Orleans, the hometown of Lee Harvey Oswald, where he last visited in 1963. On the evening of November 22, an altercation broke out at a local bar between Guy Banister and Jack Martin. Banister ran a small detective agency here, Martin worked for him. The reason for the quarrel had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, it was a purely industrial conflict. In the heat of the argument, Banister pulled out his pistol and hit Martin in the head with it several times. He shouted: "Will you kill me the way you killed Kennedy?"

The phrase aroused suspicion. Martin, who was admitted to the hospital, was interrogated, and he said that his boss Banister knew a certain David Ferry, who, in turn, knew Lee Harvey Oswald quite well. Further, the victim claimed that Ferry convinced Oswald to attack the president using hypnosis. Martin was considered not entirely normal, but in connection with the assassination of the president, the FBI worked out every version. Ferry was also interrogated, but the case did not receive any further progress in 1963.

… Three years have passed

Ironically, Martin's testimony was not forgotten, and in 1966 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison reopened the investigation. He collected testimony that confirmed that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy involving former civil aviation pilot David Ferry and businessman Clay Shaw. Of course, a few years after the murder, some of this testimony was not entirely reliable, but still Garrison continued to work.

He was hooked on the fact that a certain Clay Bertrand appeared in the report of the Warren Commission. Who he is is unknown, but immediately after the murder, he called New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews and offered to defend Oswald. Andrews, however, remembered the events of that evening very poorly: he had pneumonia, a high temperature and he took a lot of drugs. However, Garrison believed that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were one and the same person (later Andrews admitted that he generally gave false testimony regarding Bertrand's call).

Shaw, meanwhile, was a famous and respected figure in New Orleans. A war veteran, he ran a successful trade business in the city, participated in the public life of the city, wrote plays that were staged throughout the country. Garrison believed that Shaw was part of a group of arms dealers who were aiming to bring down the Fidel Castro regime. Kennedy's rapprochement with the USSR and the lack of a consistent policy against Cuba, according to his version, became the reason for the assassination of the president.

In February 1967, the details of this case appeared in the New Orleans States Item, it is possible that the investigators themselves organized the "leak" of information. A few days later, David Ferry, who was considered the main link between Oswald and the organizers of the assassination attempt, was found dead at his home. The man died of a cerebral hemorrhage, but the strange thing was that he left two notes of confused and confused content. If Ferry had committed suicide, then the notes could be considered dying, but his death did not look like a suicide.

Despite shaky evidence and evidence against Shaw, the case was brought to trial, and hearings began in 1969. Garrison believed that Oswald, Shaw, and Ferry had conspired in June 1963, that there were several who shot the president, and that the bullet that killed him was not the one fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. Witnesses were summoned to the trial, but the arguments presented did not convince the jury. It took them less than an hour to reach a verdict: Clay Shaw was acquitted. And his case remained in history as the only one brought to trial in connection with the Kennedy assassination.

Elena Minushkina