“…he is a good-for-nothing-man [who] simply betrayed his people…”
When the news media touts an individual as a great human being, one should immediately become cynical. When Hollywood touts an individual as a great human being, one should immediately become cynical. When the news media and Hollywood, in conjunction with a bunch of other luminaries, celebrates the birthday of such an individual with universal applause, one might ask what manner of evil this individual has done. While the reference could apply to Nelson Mandela, who is lauded as a latter-day-saint (with due apologies to the Mormon church) for the unique achievement of delivering South Africa to predatory international capital while not delivering an iota of benefit to the Black masses, despite the miracles that are supposed to invariably attend universal franchise and equal rights, the bouquets are on this occasion going to Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev earned his sainthood for his role in dismantling the USSR, and precipitating the fall of the Warsaw Pact. For this, people of goodwill throughout the world are supposed to be eternally grateful, as this ended the “Cold War” and achieved “peace,” so long as one has a very skewered definition of the word. While conservatives quoted Lenin that “peace simply means communist world rule,” today we might paraphrase, “peace simply means capitalist world rule,” or alternatively, “US global hegemony.” We have “peace” only insofar as there is no longer a specter of nuclear holocaust poised over the world. Harmony between nations, tribes, ethnicities, cultures, and religions remains elusive, however, and this in no small measure because those who hurrahed the demise of the Soviet bloc have ever since been even more avid in promoting their globalist agendas by promoting wars, civil wars, and “spontaneous revolts” because they no longer have the restraining factor of the Soviet bloc. With the Soviet bloc gone the Yankee is now astride the Earth like a half-witted adolescent, devoid of tradition and High Culture; a child cut free and told to do as it likes; a spoilt brat with weapons of mass destruction.
So against this background, we come back to Gorbachev.
Eightieth Birthday Celebration
ABC News described the nature of the “gala celebration,” hosted by actors Sharon Stone and Kevin Spacey, aptly stating that the “movie stars, singers and politicians” who turned out for the show, “underlined the celebrity status Mr. Gorbachev enjoys in the West, where he is widely perceived as the man who freed Eastern Europe from Soviet rule and ended the Cold War.”
Spacey opined that Gorbachev’s actions in helping to dismantle the Soviet bloc continue to reverberate, the latest manifestation being the “velvet revolutions” in the Near and Middle East. The analogy is apt, considering that the revolts that helped topple the Soviet regimes were encouraged, funded, and otherwise assisted by the same NGOs – with US Governmental backing – that are behind the present tumult in the Muslim states.
The Reuters report states that the Russian view of Gorbachev is ambivalent. Quoted is a middle-aged Moscow lawyer who states: “To me he is a good-for-nothing-man [who] simply betrayed his people, he destroyed the mechanism of the state and sold his country for nothing.”
President Medvedev, on the other hand, awarded Gorbachev Russia’s highest honors, yet enigmatically stated that the “big work” Gorbachev did, “can be assessed in different ways.” What might one think of this “compliment” other than that Medvedev, while feeling obliged to pay tribute to someone so esteemed by the “rich and famous,” has to live with the quagmire that he inherited from Gorbachev.
From Communist Functionary to Global Elitist
The gala celebration at the Royal Albert Hall, London, for “Gorby’s” eightieth was accurately labeled “The Man who Changed the World.” For his part, Gorbachev honored as “a man who changed the world” the “founder of the internet,” Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Others honored by Gorbachev with the annual “Gorbachev Awards” were CNN founder Ted Turner and Kenyan engineer Evans Wadonongo. Lech Walesa, father of post-Soviet Poland, was also present.
Y-Net News, one of the large Israeli media outlets, stated of the Gorbachev festivities that among the attendees were Israeli President Shimon Peres, and unnamed “oligarchs.” The Israeli account is more informative than other news outlets. Peres was a featured guest of the event, and presented the Kenyan engineer Wadonongo with his award. Y-Net News reporting on Peres’ speech states:
In his speech, the Israeli president said Gorbachev fought to regain what his country had lost to communism, adding that the former Soviet leader changed history.
Peres also called Gorbachev a good friend to the Jewish people, saying many Soviet Jews were permitted to make aliyah under his rule.
It is evident from Peres’ statements that Gorbachev realigned the USSR in its official attitude towards Israel and Zionism, a factor in itself meriting his elevation to celebrity status among some influential quarters. Russia, more than any other state, has historically given Jews a lot of worry. The Menshevik and subsequent Bolshevik revolts were greeted by some sections of Jewry – high and low – with messianic fervor, but their hopes, along with those of international capital (Jewish and Gentile), were soon dashed by the rise of Stalin and the exiling of Trotsky, et al. Especially after World War II and the creation of the Israeli State, the USSR viewed Zionism not only with suspicion, but as a primary world enemy. Soviet academe gave much attention to the international ramifications of Zionism. Just how well informed the Soviets were is indicated by the official publication of well-informed books such as Caution: Zionism! By Yuri Ivanov, indicating that the upper echelons of the Soviet bloc knew precisely what the Zionists were up to. The Israeli media account continues:
Leonid Shlachover, the event’s general producer, said “this gala has been organized to honor Mikhail Gorbachev, a man who truly changed the world for the better through his actions and example. “This event will celebrate his achievements by bringing together major artists from East and West in a night of celebration.”
Klaimant comments that,
Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost reforms altered the course of history by burying the Soviet Union and liberating eastern Europe.
He turned 80 on March 2, marking the occasion by advising Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin against running for a third term as president and warning about the dangers of Arab-style social revolt.
Note the ominous warning from Gorbachev against Putin, the globalists’ bugbear: do not run for the presidency again or you will face a “velvet revolution.” In context, it could be seen as an ultimatum by the globalists. Since Yeltsin, matters have not gone at all as the globalist elite intended: Putin has been like the Bonaparte of the post-Soviet era, just as Trotsky accused Stalin of being the Bonaparte of the Bolshevik Revolution. Putin halted the slide of Russia into globalization and has fought an ongoing battle with the oligarchs, whom those such as the National Endowment for Democracy portray as persecuted dissidents.
The globalists just cannot trust the Russians to keep to the script. Hence, the globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, opines that “Russia is heading in the wrong direction.” One of the CFR recommendations is to directly interfere with the Russian political process, urging US Congress to fund opposition movements by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections. Authors of the CFR report include Mark F Brzezinski, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served in the Carter Administration; Antonia W Bouis, founding executive director of the Soros Foundations; and James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.
The US “Establishment” has boasted of its subversive role in out-bolshying the bolshies. The US globalists had been working away subverting the Soviet bloc since the aftermath of World War II, when Stalin repudiated the wartime alliance and rejected US proposals for both the United Nations Organization and for the “internationalization” of atomic energy, which was seen by the Soviets to be a ruse for subordinating the USSR to the USA. The result was the “Cold War.” For several decades the USA launched an intensive subversive campaign that has been called the “cultural cold war,” via the CIA front, Congress for Cultural Freedom. This, significantly, emerged from out of the pre-war Committee for Cultural Freedom founded by Professor Sydney Hook, “life-long Menshevik” (and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Reagan), and his academic mentor Professor John Dewey. Both had led the campaign to exonerate Trotsky at the time of the Moscow Trials.
With the eclipse of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the cause was taken up and conflated by a myriad of NGOs and “civil society” organization, with the backing of US Congress and official US agencies such as USAID and the State Department, precisely in the manner being undertaken presently in North Africa. In particular, the mantle of the anti-Soviet crusade was assumed by the National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1983 by Tom Kahn of the AFL-CIO, an adherent of the post-Trotskyite Shachtmanite line, in keeping with the anti-Soviet, pro-US party line followed by many Trotskyites, including the Old Man’s widow Sedova, who supported the US in the Korean War, and viewed the USSR rather than the USA as the prime obstacle to “world revolution.”
With Congressman George Agree, Kahn believed that the USA needed a means of supporting subversive movements against the USSR, aside from the CIA. Kahn was International Affairs Director of the AFL-CIO. As the personal assistant to AFL-CIO president George Meany, Kahn was editor of Free Trade Union News, in which he continually attacked the Soviet Union. From 1977, in alliance with the League for Industrial Democracy, Kahn built up an anti-Soviet network throughout the world in “opposition to the accommodationist policies of détente”. There was a particular focus on assisting Solidarity in Poland from 1980.
President George W. Bush, speaking to the NED conference in 2003 on the war in Iraq being a continuation of the “world democratic revolution” that started in the Soviet bloc, credited the USA with the destruction of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact: “The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well.”
Apart from the prescience of Bush in his prophesying the “spontaneous revolts” now taking place in the Middle East eight years before the tumult, the numerous scenes of Reagan and Gorbachev in moods of joviality take on more significant meaning: They were both having a good laugh at what was planned for the Soviet bloc.
Gorbachev’s 1988 U.N. Speech
In 1988, Gorbachev gave the green light for the break-up of the Soviet bloc by stating before the UNO that the USSR would no longer defend pro-Soviet regimes. Analysts of the US National Security Archive have stated of Gorbachev’s speech:
Late October 1988 brought a major break with past Soviet positions, when Gorbachev decided to offer deep reductions in Soviet forces in Europe as a unilateral initiative, and to deliver a major address at the United Nations. Gorbachev conceptualized this speech as an “anti-Fulton, Fulton in reverse” in its significance – comparing it with the historic Winston Churchill “Iron Curtain” speech of 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, at the beginning of the Cold War. Gorbachev wanted his speech to signify the end of the Cold War, offering deep Soviet reductions in conventional weapons as proof of his policy. These reductions would address the most important Western concern about the threat of war in Europe, where the Soviets enjoyed significant conventional superiority. This move, in Gorbachev’s mind, would build trust and open the way for a very fast progress with the new American administration. His meeting with President-elect Bush and President Reagan would take place immediately after the U.N. speech.
Gorbachev’s speech to the UNO reflected a palace coup that was taking place in the USSR, in opposition to the military, and involving only a small coterie:
Gorbachev seemed well aware of the potential opposition to his initiative both in the Politburo and in the Armed Forces – a very sensitive issue to handle. The decision making on the U.N. speech involved a very narrow circle of advisers…
The “green light” for the “velvet revolutions” assiduously prepared by NED and others was overtly declared by Gorbachev before the UNO, Savranskaya and Blanton stating of this:
Gorbachev’s U.N. speech on December 7 explicitly endorsed the “common interests of mankind” (no longer the class struggle) as the basis of Soviet foreign policy and, significantly for Eastern Europe, declared “the compelling necessity of the principle of freedom of choice” as “a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions.” Gorbachev particularly surprised CIA and NATO officials with his announcement of unilateral cuts in Soviet forces totaling 500,000 soldiers, and the withdrawal from Eastern Europe of thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of troops. 
The intentions were unequivocal: Gorbachev and his coterie were globalists who were committed to bringing Russia into the “new world order” by scuttling the Warsaw Pact, and adhering to globalist aims. The reaction of the globalist press was expressed by The New York Times, which described Gorbachev as a “visionary.” Sen. Daniel Moynihan called the speech “the most astounding statement of surrender in the history of ideological struggle.”
The record of the meeting Gorbachev had with his coterie of advisers regarding the UN speech is essential reading for those wanting to understand his motives, not only back then, but now. Gorbachev intended to use the UNO speech to declare before the world that he was a globalist committed to making the UNO pivotal in the creation of what Bush was to later call a “new world order” in explaining the role of the war in Iraq and the opportunities provided for such global governance via the UNO with the demise of the Soviet bloc:
…This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order – a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful – and we will be – we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders…
However, Gorbachev’s UN speech pre-empted Bush’s in expressing the same doctrine. Gorbachev stated of the UNO:
This organization is called the United Nations for a reason. In this context it should have a universally accepted doctrine, which would reflect the rights of the peoples, their right of free choice, human rights. Show the UN role as an instrument of the new world.
Perhaps beginning with US/NED support for Poland’s Solidarity movement since 1980, as stated previously, oppositionist groups had been cultivated within the Soviet bloc by globalist and US interests, and Gorbachev’s speech could only be interpreted positively by anti-Soviet dissidents as a policy of “scuttle,’ no less so than Harold Macmillan’s “winds of change speech” had signaled the end of the British Empire. It was a stab in the back for those who had for decades stayed firm against the USA. The year after Gorbachev’s UN speech the Solidarity movement overthrew the Soviet regime in Poland. Carl Gershman, the Shachtmanist president of NED, remarked that Solidarity set in motion the “velvet revolutions” that would eventually collapse the Soviet bloc. Gershman analyzed the impact in classically Trotskyite ideological mode, showing how comfortably Trotskyism synthesizes with globalism:
The most notable contribution of Solidarity, aside from precipitating the unraveling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, has been the introduction of a new concept of incremental democratic enlargement, based on the idea of building on the gains in one country to extend support and solidarity to democracy movements in contiguous countries and beyond. In the NED we call this cross-border work, and it had its origins, at least in our own thinking and programs, in a conference that was sponsored by the Polish-Czech-Slovak Solidarity Foundation in Wroclaw in early November of 1989.
Gershman outlines the continuing role of these networks in the present-day undermining of Russia and those “contiguous countries” which have, in CFR parlance, “taken a wrong turn.”
And so cross-border work was born, and it has continued to expand ever since. The Polish-Czech-Slovak Solidarity Foundation went from providing support for desktop publishing in the Czech Republic and Slovakia to providing similar aid in Ukraine and Belarus, and today it works in Russia, Moldova, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Other Polish groups also engage in cross-border work, from the Foundation for Education for Democracy, an outgrowth of the Solidarity Teachers Union which provides training in civic education for teachers and NGO leaders throughout the former Soviet Union, to the East European Democratic Center which supports local media in Ukraine and Central Asia.
Gershman reminisced that the above-mentioned Polish-Czech-Slovak Solidarity Foundation was created in 1989 to spread the work of Solidarity to neighboring states, and had the support of NED. After the NED-backed Festival of Independent Czechoslovak Culture at Wroclaw University, “The Velvet Revolution began two weeks after the festival and Vaclav Havel had declared that the festival was its ‘prologue.'” Gershman stated that this “festival” had been funded with $7,500 by NED, “dollar for dollar, the best grant NED has ever made.” But the NED backing of the anti-Soviet dissident groups goes back to their beginning, Gershman stating in 1999 that:
For example, in its early years NED was able to assist the Polish Solidarity movement through its trade union institute, while at the same time providing help to independent publishing and citizen groups in Poland through its discretionary program. Discretionary grants were also made to support dissident publishing in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, often through European-based NGOs.
There is much more that could be said about NED and many other NGOs and globalist foundations, such as those of George Soros, creating the anti-Soviet dissident movements, but the main point here is that the whole Soviet edifice had been destroyed within a short time of Gorbachev giving the go ahead with his UN speech. Like the present Arab revolts, there was nothing sudden or “spontaneous” about the “velvet revolutions.” They had been well-planned and funded, and Gorbachev gave the signal.
It is significant that among the “wrong directions” taken by Russia the most notable according to Gershman are the actions taken against the oligarchs. It a recent statement, Gershman considered that, “As 2010 drew to a close, the backsliding accelerated with a flurry of new setbacks – notably the rigged re-sentencing of dissident entrepreneur Mikhail Khodorkovsky in Russia.” Gershman stated just a few weeks prior to Gorbachev’s warning about Putin’s standing for presidential re-election, that:
…Putin may be in control in Russia, but he has lost the support of the political elite which fears that his return to the presidency will usher in a period of Brezhnev-like stagnation and continued economic and societal decline…
International groups should be prepared to provide whatever assistance is needed and desired by local actors. Areas of support would include party development and election administration and monitoring, strengthening civil society and independent media, and making available the expertise of specialists in such fields as constitutionalism and electoral law as well as the experience of participants in earlier transitions.
Gershman is outlining a program that has been played repeatedly throughout the ex-Soviet bloc and central Asia and currently in the Near and Middle East: wholesale organization by NED and a myriad of other bodies such as Freedom House, the Soros networks, The Solidarity Center, International Republican Institute, ad nauseam, right down to creating political parties and formulating their programs.
Gorbachev has created his own Foundation as befits a luminary in the globalist elite, operating in tandem with a gaggle of others. His hopes for the UNO are precisely those that were rejected by Stalin when mooted by the USA. The full name of the Gorbachev flagship is the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, established in 1991. This is how its doctrine is self-described:
…The Foundation’s conceptual framework is based on the belief that in the age of globalization Russia and the rest of the world need new thinking – a new interpretation of the ideas of progress and humanism and evolving principles for a more equitable world order…
The ultimate goal is nothing less than a new civilization based on humanism: “The keynote of the Foundation’s activities is Toward a New Civilization.”
The US branch is the Gorbachev Foundation of North America (GFNA), founded in 1997. The aim of GFNA is sated as being: “…to contribute to the strengthening and spread of democracy and economic liberalization through a program of advocacy, research, and education…” Note that democracy is predicated on commitment to “economic liberalization.” Another way of phrasing this is that the propagandizing about “democracy” and concomitant slogans such as “equality,” “human rights,” and the “open society” is as a façade for the plundering of a state by predatory international capital, as has been happening to the mineral wealth of Kosovo since its “liberation” from Serbia via NATO bombs.
Gorbachev, like Soros, has created a network of organizations and “spin-offs.” One of the first was the State of the World Forum (SWF), co-founded with James Garrison. Like the Bilderbegers and the Trilateralists, SWF brought together sundry luminaries to discuss how best to run the world. What was apparently pregnant with meaning for these world planners was that the inaugural gathering took place at “the historic Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco where in 1945 the UN Charter was negotiated.”
Convened by Mikhail Gorbachev and fellow Co-Chairs Oscar Arias, Ruud Lubbers, Thabo Mbeke, George Schultz, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Maurice Strong and Ted Turner, more than 500 innovative leaders from 50 nations came together.
James Garrison, who originally chaired the GFNA, and now heads the SWF, stated the aim of the globalists unequivocally:
We are going to end up with world government. It’s inevitable … There’s going to be conflict, coercion and consensus. That’s all part of what will be required as we give birth to the first global civilization.
Of other co-founders of the SWF, Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) that issued Agenda 21. Such is his influence that Strong was described by the New York Times as “the Custodian of the Planet”, being a principal advocate of “global governance” to overcome environmental and population problems, like others such a Gorbachev and his colleague Ted Turner. Strong served as Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President Wolfensohn; and as Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; and member of Toyota’s International Advisory Board.  He served as an adviser to the Rockefeller Foundation, and on the Commission on Global Governance (CGG). He co-drafted the Earth Charter with Mikhail Gorbachev for presentation at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which Strong chaired. After the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the Commission on Global Governance was established at the suggestion of former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, head of the Socialist International.  As per the formula of Gorbachev and others, in 1991 Strong stated that the Earth Summit would have a significant role in “reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” In 1995, the CGG stated in Our Global Neighborhood: “It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.” The environment is an important means by which the globalists aim to scare the world into “global governance” to give them enhanced power. Create the problem and offer the solution: a type of dialectics. Strong is one of nine directors of the privately owned Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only such exchange in North America.  Carbon credits are the new form of international banking.
George Schultz, who has served as Secretary of Labor, Treasury and State under presidents Nixon and Reagan, and as an adviser to George W Bush, is the chairman of the JP Morgan Chase Bank’s International Advisory Council Board of Advisors, the New Atlantic Initiative, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and Committee on the Present Danger, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also a member of Soros’ Drug Policy Board, as is Vaclav Havel, first president of the post-Soviet Czech Republic in the wake of the “velvet revolution” orchestrated by Soros, et al.
In a scenario that has become familiar with globalist organizations, the SWF has engendered “spin-off organizations.” These include the Ethical Globalization Initiative. This in turn includes as its “institutional partners,” The Aspen, Institute, Columbia University, Sattachi & Saatchi and others. Global Security Institute deals with the problem of nuclear weapons, and in turn has a number of affiliated groups. Others are The Coexistence Initiative, and the Emerging Leaders Network, the latter to focus on influencing youth. Then there’s the Commission on Globalization. Each has their own programs and staff.
Among the Foundations that fund SWF are: Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Corporate sponsors include: American Express, Time Magazine/Time Warner, Royal Bank of Canada, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Rabobank, KRW International…
Gorbachev also founded the Club of Madrid, and Green Cross International. The Club of Madrid focuses on bringing together former heads of state, currently comprising 79 former presidents and prime ministers from 56 countries. Green Cross International (GCI) was founded by Gorbachev in 1993. Again, this has a series of programs advancing the globalist agenda on the pretext of environmental concerns.
The Gorbachev Foundation, like other NGOs, actively seeks to reformulate the political processes and ideology of Russia via affiliates. The Raisa Maximovna Club, founded by Raisa Gorbachev in 1997 focus on Russian women. The same types of programs are used by Soros and others to undermine the traditional foundations of societies, generally in the guise of promoting “women’s rights.” The “Club” “supports initiatives that advance civil society’s influence in Russia and is an effort to actively involve women in this process.” This is done mostly in the guise of wanting to help children and mothers, but the politicization of women for the purposes of globalist agendas is evident:
…The Club has become a forum to regularly discuss achievements and problems of the new research area in the Russian social science, gender studies.
…On December 9-10, 2002, at the Gorbachev Foundation, the Club and the Women’s Information Network held the conference “Contemporary Women’s Movement of Russia Facing New Challenges”. It was attended by activists of women’s movement coming from 20 regions of Russia. The conference discussed the need for a new strategy of women’s organizations, consolidation of women’s movement and its participation in the 2003 parliamentary elections.
Among the “partners of the Foundation,” along with Green Cross, etc., is the New Policy Forum, founded in 2010 by Gorbachev as successor to the World Policy Forum. This has precisely the same intent as other globalist forums such as the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and CFR: “…to bring together current political leaders, veterans of international politics, intellectuals and civil society representatives in a common effort to develop new ideas and new policies for the XXI century.”
The main priority of the New Policy Forum at its initial stage is: Considering issues relating to global governance. Sovereignty issues and efforts to diminish the negative impact of decisions taken at the government level and having global repercussions. The role and the future of European development in the contemporary world.
The NPF was launched in Luxembourg in 2010, with the first meeting of its Academic Advisory Board, which includes “prominent experts, scholars and mass media figures.”
Gorbachev’s political future in Russia was dim, and he became an unpopular figure, to the extent that he was feted by Western politicians. Although the reconstructed Communist Party under Zyuganov – which looks more to Stalin than to Lenin and champions Russian traditionalism, including the Orthodox Church – emerged as the largest party in the Duma, Yeltsin won the presidency with the help of an abundance of funds from oligarchic supporters. Gorbachev’s future clearly rests not within the confines of Russia, but as a luminary on the world stage as an international statesman promoting a “new world,” and as a zealot for the reanimated corpse of 19th Century “economic liberalization” that over the past several decades has become a fad with ex-socialists. Hence Gorbachev, like other globalist high-fliers, is not bound to any nation, let alone a political party, and has developed a worldwide network that appears to be just as extensive as that of George Soros, NED, Freedom House, and others, for the purpose of undermining the sovereignty of states, with a focus on Russia.
Gorbachev has delivered an ultimatum to Putin, several weeks after similar comments by NED’s Gershman, not to stand for presidential re-election, or else there will be “social unrest.” Russia’s interregnum along the globalist path under Gorbachev and Yeltsin was brief. As with the rise of Stalin, Russia again has shown herself to be untrustworthy in following the “right direction” according to the requirements of international capital.
 “Privatisation is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.” Lynda Loxton, “Mandela: We are going to privatise,” The Saturday Star, May 25, 1996, p.1.
 “America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.” George Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France.
 Reuters, ABC News, “Stars honour Gorbachev at gala birthday bash,” March 31, 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/31/3178823.htm).
 K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” February 7, 2011 Foreign Policy Journal, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/
K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-tumult-in-egypt
K R Bolton, “‘Post-Qaddafi Libya’: on the Globalist Road,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 26, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/26/post-qaddafi-libya-on-the-globalist-road/
 Reuters, ABC News, op. cit.
 Turner, like all good billionaires, has his own globalist network. This includes the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Foundation. Turner Foundation Inc., http://www.turnerfoundation.org/about/ao.asp
 “Gorbachev gala honours rich, famous and charitable,” Sydney Morning Herald, April 1, 2011.
 H Klaiman, “Peres attends Gorbachev’s birthday bash in London,” March 31, 2011, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4050192,00.html
 German Jewry was the most assimilated and nationally patriotic of any Jewish entity in the world, right up until the advent of Hitler. Zionists got a poor hearing among German Jews, and the Jewish population, anti-Semitic claims to the contrary, had figured heroically in World War I, and were prominent in the German Right (e.g. Stahlhelm, National People’s Party), despite the conspicuous appearance of Jews among communists and other anti-national groups. If it wasn’t for Hitler’s anti-Semitic policy, Zionism would have gotten nowhere among German Jews, which explains why the Zionists tended to have an optimistic view of Hitler’s rise. (See Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (Westport, Connecticut: Lawrence Hill, 1983). A good book on the history of German Jewry is: Amos Elon, The Pity of it all: A History of the Jews in Germany 1743-1933 (New York: Metropolitan Press, 2002).
 Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., for example, stated in messianic terms of the Menshevik Revolt: “May I through your columns give expression to my joy that the Russian nation, a great and good people, have at last effected their deliverance from centuries of autocratic oppression and through an almost bloodless revolution have now come into their own. Praised be God on high! Jacob H. Schiff.” “Jacob H Schiff Rejoices, By Telegraph to the Editor of the New York Times”, New York Times, March, 18, 1917. The globalists must have felt much the same way when Gorbachev sabotaged the USSR.
 Y Ivanov, Caution: Zionism! Essays on the Ideology, Organisation and Practice of Zionism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970). The entire document is online at: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/zionism/preface.html
 H Klaiman, op. cit.
 H Klaiman, ibid.
 Leon Trotsky, The Workers’ State, Thermidor and Bonapartism (1935), http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm
 For a frank and revealing account of the CFR, see the official history: Peter Grosse, Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
 Jack Kemp, et al, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do, Independent Task Force Report no. 57 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006) xi. The entire publication can be downloaded at: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Andrei Gromyko, Memories (London: Hutchinson, 1989).
 K R Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a ‘New World Order’: Relevance for the Present,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 1, 2010, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/31/origins-of-the-cold-war-how-stalin-foild-a-new-world-order/
 Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: the New Press, 2000).
 K R Bolton, “Trotsky’s Pink Tea Party and the Moscow ‘Show Trials’,” unpublished MS.
 Natalia Trotsky, “In Defense of Trotskyism,” Labour Action (June 17, 1951). Re-printed by: League for the Revolutionary Party (New York), Proletarian Revolution, No. 38 (Winter 1991). http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/Back_Issues.html#pr38
 Rachelle Horowitz, “Tom Kahn and the Fight for Democracy: A Political Portrait and Personal Recollection”, Dissent Magazine, pp. 238-239. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d11Horowitz.pdf
 Kahn had been an Executive Director of the LID until 1972. Horowitz, ibid., p. 224.
 Ibid., p. 234.
 Ibid., p. 235.
 Fred Barbash, “Bush: Iraq Part of ‘Global Democratic Revolution’: Liberation of Middle East Portrayed as Continuation of Reagan’s Policies”, Washington Post, 6 November 6, 2003.
 See for example Reagan, Vice President Bush and Gorabcehv: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB261/index.htm
 Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton (ed.) “Previously Secret Documents from Soviet and U.S. Files n the 1988 Summit in New York, 20 Years Later,” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 261, December 8, 2008.
 Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton, ibid.
 The New York Times, December 8, 1988, p. 34.
 T Blanton, “When did the Cold War End?”, Cold War International History Project Bulletin, no. 10 (March 1998), p.184.
 George W Bush, speech to US Congress, January 17, 1991.
 M Gorbachev, “What are we going to take to the United Nations?,” Conference with advisers, October 31, 1988, Attended: Shevardnadze, Yakovlev, Dobrynin, Falin, Chernyaev, Archive of the Gorbachev Foundation. Fond 2. Notes of A.S. Chernyaev. On file at the National Security Archive. Translated by Svetlana Savranskaya. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB261/sov03.pdf
 C Gershman, “Giving Solidarity to the world,” Georgetown University, May 19, 2009, http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president/archived-remarks-and-presentations/051909
 Trotsky and Lenin believed that communist revolution would spread to Central Europe, with Germany as a pivotal state, and that the Soviet Red Army must be ready to intervene. Robert Service, Trotsky: A biography (London, Pan book, 2010), “World Revolution,” pp. 247-25.
 C Gershman, op. cit.
 C Gershman, “Bridging time and Borders 1989-2009,” December 2, 2009, http://www.ned.org/for-reporters/bridging-time-and-borders-1989-2009
 C Gershman, “NED: Its History, Structure and Role in Promoting Democracy,” July 8, 1999, http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president/archived-presentations-and-articles/the-national-endowment-for-democr
 Carl Gershman, “The Fourth Wave: Where the Middle East revolts fit in the history of democratization – and how we can support them,” March 14, 2011, http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85143/middle-east-revolt-democratization
 There are two regimes that are also mentioned in particular by Gershman here: those of Belarus and Venezuela. They also figure prominently in the conferences and statements of Movements.org and others, so they are certainly states to watch out for in the near future as being particularly marked out for “spontaneous people’s revolts.”
 K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion
 Gorbachev Foundation, “About Us,” http://www.gorby.ru/en/gorbi_fund/about/
 “Mission,” The Gorbachev Foundation of North America, http://www.gfna.net/staff.php
 “State of the World Forum, “The First Five Years 1995-1999,” http://www.worldforum.org/conferences/1995_1999.htm
 J Garrison, The Daily Record, Dunn, North Carolina, p. 4, October 17, 1995. (The original source needs verifying).
 Ronald Bailey, “International Man of Mystery: Who is Maurice Strong?”, The National Review, 1 September 1997. http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html (Accessed 14 February 2010).
 Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, Chapter 1, “A New World”, http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/global-neighbourhood/chap1.htm (Accessed 14 February 2010).
 Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX Directors, http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67 (Accessed 14 February 20100.
 New Atlantic Initiative is yet another globalist think tank of industrialists, bankers, politicians, journalists, etc. aiming to push the USA and Europe closer together and counter protectionist and nationalistic economic policies. Shultz is listed as a patron, along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. http://www.jcpa.org/nai.htm
 “About Us – Supporters,” http://www.worldforum.org/supporters.htm
 Club of Madrid, http://www.clubmadrid.org/en/estructura/board_of_directors
 Green Cross, “History,” http://www.gci.ch/en/who-we-are/history
 The Raisa Maximovna Club, “Projects,” http://www.gorby.ru/en/activity/projects/show_27843/
 Robert Service, Comrades: Communism: A World History (London: Pan Books 2008), p. 456.
 Ibid., p. 463.
 Robert Service says of this period that the December 1993 referendum that endorsed Yeltsin’s constitutional reforms was “fiddled.” In the 1996 presidential campaign Zyuganov was in the lead at the start, “but lacked the resources available to Yeltsin, who enlisted the wealthiest businessmen on his side.” Service, ibid.