๐จ DECIPHERING NED DROP 1๏ธโฃ: WHAT IS? "DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING" ๐ณ๏ธ
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. taxpayer-funded NGO with active members of Congress on its board. While it presents itself as a promoter of democracy, in practice it has long served as a front for the CIA, carrying out foreign influence operations that would be politically or legally unacceptable if done directly by U.S. intelligence.
As I've documented extensively in threads and on Substack, NED also works closely with George Soros's network of NGOs and has largely adopted his ideological agenda, especially overseas.
They publish an academic journal, NED Journal of Democracy, which is extremely revealing.
The New World Order- that is, the world order that dominated since the Cold War- is based on the concept of "Open Society" versus "Closed Society."
Peace and national security is not measured in terms of absence of war or violence, but in terms of how many countries are an "Open Society."
It doesn't matter if a country elected their own leader in a democratic or peaceful way. If they are not an "Open Society," they are a "Closed Society" and thus an enemy.
It is a binary worldview, binary mindset.
Under the same binary worldview, assimilation of other nations as Open Societies is the top priority of foreign policy. Which means- pouring massive amounts of foreign aid into them (and NGOs). And military intervention if that fails, as with Afghanistan or Iraq.
Remember, this worldview is strongly binary. They cannot suffer other opinions to exist. If you oppose foreign aid, or oppose military interventions for regime change, you are a member of a "Closed Society" and thus the enemy. This makes MAGA-style populism just as big a threat as Russia, if not worse.
And this is the thrust of NED. They are ostensibly the CIA front and should be spending their time discussing other nations. But in reality, they spend as much time discussing how to handle dissident opinions in the USA as they do. They see MAGA as a national security threat.
If this scares you, good. It should. This is what most of intelligence and Congress supports.
This is the reason why our infrastructure crumbles, our health care system decays, SS goes bankrupt, but they keep insisting on sending foreign aid.
They don't care about Americans because Americans are their enemy.
Now, NED and other Open Society aligned groups have their own set of vocabulary. It will be through these drops that I will slowly decipher the vocabulary.
Let's start off with the most simple- 99% of the time, they don't refer to themselves as "Open Society." Instead, it's "pro-democracy" or "Western."
With that in hand, we'll look at the first article of the day today... "Misunderstanding Democratic Backsliding", by Thomas Carothers and Brendan Hartnett, published in the Journal of Democracy, Volume 35, Number 3, July 2024.
"Backsliding" is used a lot in these journals, especially when talking about the post-Trump United States.
What does it mean?
You might think it refers to things like election fraud, political violence, or coups. Sometimes it does. But just as often, "backsliding" is used to describe perfectly legal, democratic elections... simply because the winner isnโt to the liking of global elites, NGOs, or foreign-policy circles, including CIA/NED.
Here's a quote which indirectly defines backsliding: "The onus for backsliding belongs on those leaders who gain power for a wide range of reasons... but then once in power relentlessly amass unconstrained power by overriding countervailing institutions and undercutting basic democratic norms and procedures."
Note the keywords "overriding countervailing institutions." That's NED and Soros-speak for themselves. Backsliding happens when people elect populist, America-first leaders or vote against corruption.
This is a definition that is used almost universally across universities, media, and foreign policy officials. They have effectively re-defined democracy to mean themselves and their network of NGOs.
Trump's election and re-election means the United States is "backsliding." Doesn't matter if he was democratically elected- he is automatically an enemy of democracy because he isn't for Open Societies.
Also from the article: "Backsliding is less about a failure of democracy to deliver than about a failure of democracy to constrain โ that is, to curb the predatory political ambitions and methods of certain elected leaders."
Translation: Democracy is backsliding when courts, media, NGOs, and bureaucracies fail to stop elected populists from exercising their mandate.
Think a minute about what that means. NED / CIA is outright saying that in order to save democracy, you have to use anti-democratic approaches to subvert the will of the people.
They're actively writing articles about how to take away our vote, how to ban the Republican party, and so on.
As I've said many times, active members of Congress sit on NED. This is is what our politicians think of us. They hate us to their core.
The article proposes a barrage of media coverage, NGOs, courts to stop backsliding.
Sounds a lot like exactly what is happening today.
๐ฅ Think about what this really means.
NED is openly arguing that to "protect democracy," we must override democratic elections, weaken voter power, and use unelected institutions to block political outcomes they don't like.
They are publishing articles on:
๐นWhether to end voting rights for populists,
๐นHow to ban anti-establishment parties, and
๐นHow to channel foreign money into media and NGOs that manipulate the political process.
These strategies are being funded and implemented globally on your tax dollars, and it is also happening right here in the United States.
Members of Congress sit on NED's board. This is how our political class thinks.
Let it sink in: They do not want you to choose your leaders. And when you vote the "wrong" way, they call it backsliding, and look for ways to stop it.
In short, they despise you. And if you despise them back, you are the threat to democracy. ๐งจ
This ends Drop 1๏ธโฃ, but more to come. ๐งตend
Final note, if you think I'm being sensational... then you have a short memory.
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
๐งต๐จ MAJOR BREAKING: Inside The New Pluralists: how billionaires weaponized the Biden Administration, targeted Charlie Kirk, and are quietly financing Americaโs color revolution ๐จ๐จ
In 2017, a quiet meeting brought representatives of Soros, Koch, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations together for one purpose: to rethink how philanthropy influences politics.
Out of that meeting came the โNew Pluralists,โ a coalition that would go on to shape the Biden White Houseโs United We Stand summit, fund censorship-adjacent projects, and eventually intersect with investigations into Turning Point USA ... and the color revolution that's brewing in the United States now.
Thanks to @iamlisalogan and @skdoubledub33 for the research.
As always, patience as I pull together the thread in real time. ๐
Our story starts in mid-2017, Mark Gerzon, president and founder of the Mediators Foundation, began organizing a private meeting of major political funders. Scheduled for November on the East Coast, the gathering was to include representatives of both the Soros and Koch families, along with about twenty other donors from across the political spectrum. Gerzon described them as people on the left and right who were disillusioned with how their money was influencing politics and wanted to explore new ways to use their wealth more effectively.
If youโre unfamiliar with Mark Gerzon, he has an extensive background in international diplomacy. He has served as a consultant for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), worked with the Carnegie Council, and was a distinguished fellow at the EastWest Institute, where he facilitated dialogues between the Chinese Communist Party and members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
I just came across this in an Open Society Foundations document about how to fix public โmistrustโ of liberal "democracy," and I honestly feel sick reading it. I've read many alarming quotes, but few are so "mask off" like this.
"I believe the time has come for a responsible, courageous elite, those who care far more about addressing the genuine social problems than about election results. Only a political elite with vision, prudence and a focus on the general goodโto whom the electorateโฆ can cede part of their sovereignty in the electionsโwill be able to justify public trust and spearhead... our struggle to survive.""
Read that again. The proposed solution to the public's distrust in democracy... is less democracy.
An unelected "elite" to whom the public should cede sovereignty.
Abolish democracy to save democracy. This kind of thinking is what we're up against.
To make it even more insane, she doesn't follow it up with, "yeah, I know, this sounds dystopian, hear me out..."
she follows it up with "I can already imagine the reactions of many: this is a naive utopia, it is impossible in this day and age."
Utopia. It's utopia to her and her audience.
This woman is not a raving Soros rando. She has been decorated with the highest civilian honors in multiple countries - Italy, France, Germany, Council of Europe for her democracy work. She is an expert on "basic principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law."
๐น In college, Barack Obama helped co-found a local chapter of CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador), a U.S. group that supported the FMLN, a Marxist guerrilla front fighting the U.S.-backed Salvadoran government.
๐น CISPES often worked alongside the Nicaragua Network, which championed the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. (U.S. intelligence later confirmed that the Sandinistas supplied El Salvadorโs rebels with weapons and training.)
๐น As the solidarity scene matured:
โข 1985: Nicaragua Network + Detroit CISPES โก๏ธ merge โ CASC (Central America Solidarity Committee)
โข 1993: CASC + MICAH โก๏ธ merge โ OSCA (Organization in Solidarity with Central America)
โข 1998: Former Nicaragua Network activists incorporate the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), folding their old network inside as a project.
Today AFGJ still operates as a left-wing umbrella group ... the same lineage that began with 1980s โsolidarityโ campaigns.
So yesโฆ the activist ecosystem that once rallied for Marxist guerrillas in Central America evolved, merged, and rebranded, and figures like Obama (via early CISPES work) and later Bill Ayers (through AFGJ-linked circles) both trace lines back into that same network.
CISPES (of which Obama founded a local chapter, according to David Garrow) was found to have furnished funds to Marxist rebels in El Salvador, in possible violation of the Firearms Control Act.
They also met with FMLN, potentially violating FARA.
The report goes onto detail other allegations that weren't substantiated, such as CISPES taking direction from foreign governments on when and where to demonstrate.
I found a declassified CIA document that states that Farid Handal, brother of the Salvadoran Communist leader, traveled to meet with representatives of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to create these solidarity networks in the USA -- including CISPES.
๐งต THREAD: Meet the Organizers Behind No Kings protest: Indivisibleโs Leah Greenberg & Ezra Levin ๐บ๐ธ
Taking a break from book writing for this...
This week, the movement that started with a Google Doc... Indivisible... is back in the streets. โ Founded by former congressional staffers Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin and funded by George Soros' Open Society network, Indivisible has grown from a viral guide into one of the most powerful grassroots networks in the U.S.
Now, theyโre leading NoKings, a nationwide push to remind America that democracy means no one is above the law. ๐โ
This thread dives into who Greenberg and Levin are, how Indivisible rose to prominence, and whatโs really behind the โNo Kingsโ movement.
As always, patience as I pull the thread together in real time.
๐
When you go to the NoKings website, you'll find over a hundred partners listed, many of them familiar and many Soros-backed. They include big names closely tied to the DNC such as Marc Elias' Democracy Forward.
Greenberg and Levin are co-founders of Indivisible. Other than donor-advised funds, their backing primarily comes from Open Society and Fund for a Better Future. The latter is a shadowy nonprofit backed by Sergey Brin and played a key role in the infamous "Build Back Better" campaign of 2020.
Does anyone know how the SPLC is funded? They report receiving over $100MM in contributions each year, but CauseIQ shows they receive few large grants from other nonprofits; they report only 26MM and that's over multiple years. That's unusual. (And, no, they don't report receiving government money.)