English 
Español 
29.11.2020
Introduction: the document translated from the French original, which follows below, is a part of the world conspiracy to establish the New World Order, as presented in our previous articles on the conspiracy hypothesis. Below is explained how the EU puts pressure to impose its ideologies around homosexuality, genderism, abortion and the iron grip on school education in a materialistic mode. It is time for the Member States to stop fooling themselves. Above the French original.
The director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, Dr. Gregor Puppinck (www.eclj.org) denounces the permeability of the Council of Europe to private funding. The political independence of this organization is questioned. Interview granted by Mr. Puppinck to Valeurs Actuelles, France, on 25 November 2020.
Six months after the Soros scandal was revealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), we now show that the Council of Europe, on which the ECtHR depends, was itself financed by the Open Society and Microsoft.
Gregor Puppinck, director of the ECLJ: In fact, reading the annual financial reports of the Council of Europe, it appears that George Soros’ Open Society and Bill Gates’ Microsoft are the two largest private donors to this institution. These two donors have contributed to the Council of Europe, respectively, about 1,400,000 Euros between 2004 and 2013 and about 690,000 Euros between 2006 and 2014. The Open Society also supports the initiatives of the Council of Europe, including the European Institute for Roman Arts and Culture. As of 2015 there is no longer any trace of such direct funding, but the Council of Europe has established a special fund to receive such extra-budgetary voluntary contributions.
These payments have not ceased to raise questions, as it is surprising that an intergovernmental political organization is so permeable to private funding. One member of the Council of Europe has referred the matter to the Committee of Ministers and asked its 48 ambassadors to make public all documents relating to such funding.
More generally, is this an inquiry into the financing of international bodies by certain large NGOs and foundations?
It is true that the problem is not only for the Council of Europe, but also for the International Criminal Court, which has received $115,000 from the Open Society in 2017, and even more for the WHO and even the UN. The Gates Foundation is the second largest source of funding for the WHO after the United States, with a disbursement of $530 million in 2019. Eighty percent of WHO’s budget is based on voluntary contributions – donations from foundations and governments. This method of funding obviously calls into question the political independence of these organizations.
These large international official institutions are prime targets for those who wish to exercise global political influence, as they have considerable power. Consequently, these organizations are vulnerable to “philanthropic billionaires” seeking to exert global political influence. This political influence can be exercised, as you will have observed, without recourse to democratic mechanisms and controls. Therefore, in order to preserve or restore the independence of these large international organizations, it is imperative to examine and clarify their methods of financing.
Is it possible to speak of a phenomenon of management of certain large private NGOs in international organizations?
We observe not only a phenomenon of takeover, but also of collusion which can be explained if we consider the financial power of these private NGOs: let us remember that the Open Society has been endowed with 32 billion dollars, which it has invested in the sectors of human rights, media and politics since 1984. The problem is not limited to the Open Society, but also touches other large private foundations, such as Gates, Ford or Oak. This was shown accurately and brilliantly in Gaétan Cliquennois’ recent book on the privatization of human rights (Cambridge, 2020).
Former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, referred to Georges Soros as his “good friend”, and the Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, was Director of Open Society Programs until he took up a position at the Council of Europe in 2012. In 2009, he explained that the Open Society wanted to create a new man – the homo sorosensus [referring to Soros] – the man of the open society.
The influence of this network is now being shown publicly. Many leaders like to show their closeness to Soros father and son. This is the case, for example, of Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, or Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights since 2018, photographed as soon as she took office with Georges Soros and his son.
What about the follow-up to his report on the influence of Soros’ NGOs on the ECHR (European Commission on Human Rights)?
This report (available here: accessible ici) has had a huge impact in Europe and worldwide and has been taken up by several governments and many politicians. This is particularly the case in Russia and Bulgaria. I believe that public opinion is now informed and has become aware of the issue. This report shows that, in the last ten years, 22 of the 100 permanent judges of the Court have come from seven private NGOs active at the Court, and that 18 of them have decided cases involving “their” private NGOs, in violation of basic standards of judicial ethics. Among these seven NGOs, the Open Society network is notable for the number of judges linked to it (12) and for the fact that it funds the six other organizations cited in the report.
However, this report is hampered by the embarrassing silence of the institution. The ECHR (European Commission on Human Rights) informed the newspaper Le Monde of its decision not to respond. Three members of the Council of Europe then referred the matter to the Committee of Ministers, referring to the “systemic problem of conflicts of interest between NGOs and judges of the Court” and asking about the means to be implemented to “restore the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights”. Not surprisingly, its 48 ambassadors seem to have difficulty agreeing on a response, as they have far exceeded the three-month deadline for this procedure. They are obliged to respond in writing, if only to express their inability to do so.
What about the instances in Brussels that have also been investigated?
Many MPs from various political parties have wanted to address this issue, but the health crisis at COVID-19 has altered the agendas. However, several members of the European Parliament have also asked parliamentary questions to the European Commission and the European Council.
The European Commission responded through one of its vice-presidents, Věra Jourová: “The Commission has no doubts about the integrity and independence of the European Court of Human Rights. It is like answering: Go away, there is nothing to see, except perhaps a few photos that help us understand the context in which this answer is given. In this one we can see Commissioner Jourová with the Hungarian philanthropist Soros saying that “the values of the open society are at the heart of EU action”. In another photo, European Commissioner Johannes Hahn – author of another response – also poses with George Soros, saying that “it is always good to meet with George Soros to discuss our joint efforts to accelerate reforms and open societies in the Balkans and Eastern Europe”.
Indeed, the photos are impressive, but it is really nothing unexpected, since between 2014 and 2018 George Soros and his lobbyists benefited from no less than 64 interviews with Commissioners and senior officials of the European Commission, more, it seems, than the European heads of state.
All these facts should open our eyes to recognize the great weight of these networks of influence and power over national political institutions. The report of the European Court of Justice on NGOs and the European Convention on Human Rights has shown this dirty pool, has exposed and demonstrated the reality of this collusion in the specific framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is not enough. While any national court would have reacted firmly, to sanction the judges in question and correct the system, the European authorities are turning their backs and expecting people to think otherwise. There is no desire to question the system. It is frightening.
How do you explain this lack of questioning?
The links between international bodies and the main NGOs and foundations are too deep and too close; it is the power system itself: there is a symbiosis between them, both financially and ideologically, and even humanly. But this complementary relationship is distorted and unbalanced by the intervention of philanthropic billionaires who pursue their own political, economic and financial objectives. Thus, the system is perverted by this “privatization of human rights.
Were you victim of reprisals for your revelations about Soros’ control of the ECHR?
Not immediately, except in an article in Le Monde. On the other hand, we are now regularly targeted by the media. The latest, and most important, was orchestrated by the Open Democracy organization, a member of the Soros galaxy, with the support of pro-abortion lobbyists. A few weeks ago, this organization published a pseudo-research against the ECLJ that was simultaneously broadcast in some fifty newspapers around the world, including Time Magazine and EuroNews. Open Democracy mobilized “Tracking the Backlash,” its own informal network of activist journalists, created to “track the [conservative] reaction. Its aim is to stain the reputation of its political opponents. According to all these articles, the ECLJ is a big threat, calling its lawyers “crusaders” and “secret army,” “infiltrating our democratic institutions” like “wolves in sheep’s clothing. The organization’s statements are obviously outrageous, as was its call last March for the “abolition of the family,” but they all demonstrate the power of these networks.
This type of attack confirms, if proof were needed, the need to objectively expose and accuse the networks of power that make up the new system of government, both global and post-democratic.
|
