Western NGO's: intervention in other way

In Russia and many other countries, it is considered that foreign non-governmental organizations, as well as programs related to them and implemented in donor countries, often are aimed at undermining national sovereignty, blurring state and cultural identity, or are a cover for intelligence activities. This is partly true as they are connected with such sharks of civil society such as “Amnesty International”, “National Endowment for Democracy”, “Freedom House”, “Peace Corps”, “Carnegie Endowment”, “International Committee of the Red Cross”, “Heritage Foundation”, “Open Society Foundations” and others; they’re named “missionaries of the empire” for their obvious connections with the CIA and the US State Department. 
However, it is also important that many analytical or, as is commonly said, think tanks, develop a long-term strategy for the domestic and foreign policy of the state. This policy largely determines the decision-making, the consequences of which are also associated with interference in the affairs of other states, but already by the official authorities and the use of the full range of available resources. Of course, first of all, we are talking about the United States where such initiatives were born.
If we take a brief look at the history of American NGOs, we will find that the “Council on Foreign Relations” was one of the pioneers in creating a powerful lobby that has an impact on foreign policy and world processes. Both representatives of the White House and the movers from Wall Street were associated with this structure. Brookings Institution was deeply involved in the development of the program which later became known as the Marshall Plan for the post-war reconstruction of Western Europe. American Enterprise Association (now called American Enterprise Institute) helped to develop, install and then withdraw control of production and prices during World War II. The Cato Institute think tank, which has been part of the world's top 20 think tanks for the last few years, "has successfully implemented a libertarian perspective in Washington's politics and political discourse". The millionaires behind it (brothers Charles and David Koch) are engaged in investment projects in the oil, chemical and forest industries (Koch Industries) and, according to environmentalists, are involved in many destructive processes related to climate and biological resources.
The Heritage Foundation, together with the Wall Street Journal, propose to the whole world an idea of global economic freedom, presenting its index based on specific factors, thus manipulating the mass consciousness of the priorities in this area. Similarly, we can say the same about the rating of incapacity of states which like to make another globalist tandem of the American Peace Fund and the magazine Foreign Policy.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University is known for the fact that Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski started there, although, to this day there are strategies for the American political elite to plan what to do with this or that state.
Today's situation is such that there is no clear division into foreign and domestic policies in the world. Many scientific, cultural, social and political processes are interdependent, which is well expressed by the metaphor from the theory of chaos: "the flap of a butterfly’s wings over the Atlantic can cause a hurricane in the Pacific".
And the hyper-politization of American think tanks, the emergence of their branches in other States, as well as the creation of a global platform- the NGO network, which is actually pro-American, is a clear signal of the deployment of Washington tools around the world and its penetration into a variety of spheres of life. Politics, economics, security, ecology, biodiversity, culture, folk traditions and family values – all of these are analysed, reformatted and reproduced in the near-scientific discourse in accordance with the liberal-capitalist globalist matrix and Washington's plans.
According to the global NGO index statistics from 2012, in the USA, there were 1,815 analytical centres out of 5,329 organizations represented in the ranking: in Washington there are only 393, then Massachusetts with 176 and California with 170. The next one is China (452), then India (292), and in the top 5 are Great Britain (286) and Germany (194). Of course, not all non-governmental organizations from the existing ones in the world were included in the rating, but the fact that Russia was not even in the top 5 should already be alarming. It is unlikely that in Soviet times the country's leadership would have allowed such a serious backlog. In addition, it is no less strange that in the regional ratings in Russia last year the Carnegie Moscow Center took first place; i.e. according to this index, the agents of US interests in Russia are in the lead, although it is unlikely that this center has a real impact. The Higher School of Economics, which is an incubator of liberal ideas in Russia, regularly falls into this index from year to year among several Russian NGOs. It turns out that in Russia, according to this rating, there is not an adequate response, and in general, not all layers of intellectuals are represented.
However, let's see what is happening in this area of the United States.
In recent decades, however, think tanks — like much of our (US) culture — have become increasingly political”, notes the publication Washington Post. This trend began after the emergence of the Heritage Foundation which was the first think tank dealing with propaganda tasks. When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, Heritage developed a comprehensive conservative agenda for the new administration. It contained more than 2,000 recommendations. By the end of Reagan's second presidential term, the administration had accepted more than 60% of the proposals. The practical success of the Heritage Foundation has led to the emergence of imitators and helped to enter an era that political scientist Donald Abelson named "advocacy think tank". New Washington think tanks are generally less scientific but increasingly political and usually directly linked to the fate of a party or faction in the party.
Think tanks such as the Hoover Institution and the American Institute of Entrepreneurship have also worked closely with the White House administration. Regarding the latter, Reagan said in 1988 that "today the most important American scientists are leaving our analytical centers, and no one was more influential than the American Institute of Entrepreneurship."
In the 1990’s, the Republicans organized an update for their analytical centres which was due to the victory of Bill Clinton in the presidential elections in 1992. Former officials of the Bush administration had created Project for the Republican Future and Empower America. The project’s staff in 1995 moved to the journal Weekly Standard, and Empower America merged with the organization Citizens for a Sound Economy, reformed in FreedomWorks in 2004.
It should also be noted that such neoconservative NGOs are Benador Associates, Project for the New American Century, Committee on the Present Danger, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Middle East Forum, American Committee for the Peace in Chechnya (the last one actively supported the separatists in Russia), publications by The Weekly Standard, Commentary, The American, The National Interest, National Review, National Post, The Public Interest, The New Republic, Christian Science Monitor and others.
As for their democratic and ultra-liberal opponents, they used the "Progressive Policy Institute" to generate ideas for the Bill Clinton administration.
This trend, together with the development of information and communication technologies, reached new heights in 2003 with the establishment of the Center for American Progress which from the very beginning focused on politics and the development of the message. In connection with this approach, the distribution of funds in the center is different as it allocates 40% of its resources on advocacy goals and communication (John Podesta, - its founder, former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, said in 2008: this is eight times more than in typical liberal political organizations). According to Bloomberg in 2003, such rich donors as George Soros and producer Stephen Bing have allocated about $10 million to fill in, as they believed, the intellectual vacuum in the Democratic party and create an engine that would develop the appropriate agenda of the party for a possible return to power, which served as a resource base for the Center for American Progress.
The center has 180 employees and an annual budget of $27 million, half of which it allocates to promote their ideas through blogs, events, publications and the media.
However, at the same time, the NGOs of the USA marked a clear increase in abuse and blatant double standards. If earlier, whatever the real goals of the American think tanks were, the outer facade was still crowned with the rhetoric of the struggle for human rights, respect for civil liberties and others; now, there is a rigid pragmatism and subjective approach. This is confirmed by the words, in 2008, of the Vice-President of the Center for American Progress on Communications, Jennifer Palmieri (served as Deputy Director of Communications for the US presidential administration under Obama), "Others want to be objective, and we do not".
A noteworthy fact is that in October 2011, The New York Times reported that the Center for American Progress helped and encouraged protests by Occupy Wall Street that, once again, confirms the involvement of financial speculator George Soros in this movement.
On the one hand, it allows the identification of specific goals and intentions and the presence of links with a certain NGO political faction in Congress or Senate as they likely vector of  political scenarios. On the other hand, it enables the auditing of the activities of such centers. Andrew Rich, an author on think tanks, Public Policy and the Politics of Expertise, wrote in his research that “The well-known ideological tendencies of many, especially new research centers and their active efforts aimed at obtaining high profiles, led to the undermining of the trust of the expert community which officials have traditionally enjoyed”.
Of course, under Donald Trump, the level of activity of analytical centres in the US has changed. In recent years, new non-governmental organizations have emerged in Europe and Asia, including Russia. But, this does not reduce the engagement of some American structures in the affairs of other states. On the contrary, the work of other non-governmental organizations in their countries is regarded by the United States as a challenge, consequently, the State Department and various political groups are looking for possible ways to further infiltrate, whether as an "ideological virus" defined by Steven Mann or a swinging of one of the centres of gravity defined by John Warden.
 It is significant that the methods of non-governmental organizations can be used in the same interests which previously conducted military campaigns. Thus, the directory of command of special operations of the US Army are practically the same recommendations as in the training manual of Gene Sharp on non-violent protests, only more logically structured in characteristics and typology.


Formal Statements

1. Public speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider Audience

7. Slogans, caricatures and symbols
8. Banners, posters and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio and television
12. Skywriting and earth-writing

Group Representations

13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts

18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobing
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures

Pressures on Individuals

31. “Haunting” officials
32. Taunting officials
33. Fraternization
34. Vigils

Drama and Music

35. Humorous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
37. Singing


38. Marches
39. Parades
40. Religious processions
41. Pilgrimages
42. Motorcades

Honoring the Dead

43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies

47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins

Withdrawal and Renunciation

51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honors
54. Turning one’s back


Ostracism of Persons

55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs and Institutions

60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the Social System

65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. “Flight” of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (Hijrat)



Actions by Consumers

71. Consumers’ boycott
72. Non-consumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers’ boycott
77. International consumers’ boycott

Action by Workers and Producers

78. Workmen’s boycott
79. Producers’ boycott

Action by Middlemen

80. Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott

Action by Owners and Management

81. Traders’ boycott
82. Refusal to rent or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants’ “general strike”

Action by Holders of Financial Resources

86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government’s money

Action by Governments

92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers’ embargo
95. International buyers’ embargo
96. International trade embargo



Symbolic Strikes

97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes

99. Peasant strike
100. Farm workers’ strike 

Strikes by Special Groups

101. Refusal of impressed labor
102. Prisoners’ strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial Strikes

105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes

108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting “sick” (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike

Multi-Industry Strikes

116. Generalized strike
117. General strike

Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures

118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown



Rejection of Authority

120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance 

Citizens’ Noncooperation with Government

123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

Citizens’ Alternatives to Obedience

133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sit-down
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws 

Action by Government Personnel

142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny

Domestic Governmental Action

149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

International Governmental Action

151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organizations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organizations


Psychological Intervention

158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. Fasting
a) Fast of moral pressure
b) Hunger strike
c) Satyagrahic fast
160. Reverse trial
161. Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention

162. Sit-in
163. Stand-in
164. Ride-in
165. Wade-in
166. Mill-in
167. Pray-in
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention

174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theater
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system

Economic Intervention

181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention

193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government