Investigation on George Soros’s beyond frontiers activities
Yugoslavia, Hungary, Libya, Ukraine, France, Syria, United States
Through his Open Society networks spread among 120 countries, the philanthropist George Soros ventilates dollars for the sake of world’s societies, as a devoted believer in Mission. At least that’s what the big and medium-sized broadcasters suggest, having never ever conducted a single serious investigation into the global and local influence that Soros entities exert on the planet. Soros’ fellows have at least the merit to be (well paid) hard-workers. But in which purpose, exactly?
[ La VO version française est disponible ici ].
The speculator Soros, batterer of the British pound in 1992, fox of bold financial schemes, should make the anti-imperialist left, the anti-capitalist or Trotskyist left litteraly shudder. If one looks hard enough, one finds, at best, in the journal of the Pôle de Renaissance Communiste, a few pertinent mentions of George Soros, in connection with the hunt for Julian Assange, albeit allusive and laconic, and at worst, in the radical left fanzine Lundi-Matin, a diatribe against the Gilets Jaunes, who would only denounce Soros after « nights spent in front of Alain Soral’s videos, » sinking into the myth of the « Jewish conspiracy« .
[ Alain Soral is described in Wikipedia as a French-Swiss “far-right ideologue” who defends “anti-Semitic, negationist, conspiratorial, sexist and homophobic ideas”].
It would seem that criticism of the capitalist fellow can only come from the right and the extreme right. Besides the scarecrow Alain Soral, elements of the European conservative right are concerned about the growing influence of Sorosian entities, especially in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The very conservative and Christian NGO ECLJ, European Center for Law and Justice, which followed from 2009 to 2019 the hundred or so judges who have officiated at the ECHR, among whom 12% have had responsibilities at the OSF (Open Society Foundation), but also seven judges who have passed through the Helsinki foundations, of which the very active Helsinki Foundation of Poland was blessed in 2017 by the OSF, which furnished then 40% of its daily bread.
Roughly two out of ten judges of the ECHR have thus passed, more or less assiduously, through the financial and/or ideological and relational zone of influence, that of one man, the American of Hungarian origin George Soros.
The representation of humanitarian NGOs at the heart of the ECHR is not surprising, and may even contribute to some democratic emulation within an institution that, through its jurisprudence, orients and shapes European law practice. However, the hegemonic character of the Soros-related organizations biases the NGO community, and through it, the ECHR.
Extract from the ECLJ report: « In addition to its geopolitical actions, the OSF advocates and funds initiatives in favor of, for example, freedom of expression, education for the Roma, as well as the liberalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, LGBT behaviors, and the rights of refugees and minorities. Within the OSF network, the Open Society Justice Initiative specializes in strategic litigation. This organization, like a few others, is able to act simultaneously in all the international instances where law is elaborated… ».
If the passivity of the left-wing organizations is partially explained, the passivity of the conservative newspaper Le Figaro, which cowardly overlooked the release of the ECLJ report, is revealing. The right-wing and left-wing circles are keen to accept without flinching the invasive action of a billionaire based in New York, in our societies and up to the highest instances of human rights.
Density and nature of the « Soros » networks
Before discussing the billionaire’s ideology and objectives, let’s set some benchmarks. Soros unambiguously supports the Democratic Party, he has financed the campaigns of John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and actively and systematically supports their policy of foreign interference (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen…).
The lobbyists of the « Open Society European Policy Institute » and their mentor have officially met 64 times, from 2014 to 2018, with the officials of the European Commission, President and Vice President included. The Czech Republic’s Vera Jourovan, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, met with him three times before being appointed Vice-President of the Commission in 2019; according to her, « Open Society’s values are at the heart of the EU’s action ». Austrian Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, welcomes the « joint efforts » with Soros to « accelerate reforms and open societies in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. No matter New York or Brussels, buddy George is at home.
Here are three definitions of the term « network » from the 1982 Larousse encyclopedia:
1. A set of lines or elements that communicate or intersect in a more or less complex or regular way.
2. An organized whole whose elements, depending on a center, are distributed in various points.
4. Clandestine organization whose members, working in liaison with each other, pursue a common action.
Synthesis:
Soros is the center of a primary network made up of the elements he explicitly funds and directs, either in his own name or under the Open Society Foundations, or other.
A secondary network of large « partners » NGOs « considered our allies », whose governance is shared among various private or public institutes, is described in the 2008 document « Global Alliance for the Open Society:
. International Crisis Group.
. Human Rights Watch
. Media Development Loan Fund (renamed MDIF).
. Southern Africa Media Development Fund
. Vera Institute of Justice
. Center for Public Integrity
. Transparency International
. Penal Reform International
. Doctors Without Borders, AIDS
…
In addition, it grants financial aid to a myriad of organizations (more than 199 according to this list), whose degree of informal affiliation is variable and difficult to trace or read (see example of Avaaz below). They form a potential support network, which may act independently, or on behalf of other donor bodies (German « Stiftung », national ministries, various state institutions such as USAID, Bill & Gates, B&Hillary Clinton, Ford, Rockefeller foundations…), or according to more specifically Sorosian objectives.
Their capacity for action is reinforced by public subsidies for their quality of public utility or adherence to « Open Society values ». A large number of citizens are more or less committed to the cause: from civil society grassroots to the top decision makers, George Soros covers a wide spectrum.
The common action of the formal network is branded « Open Society », while serving geopolitical aims that go beyond the simple societal framework. To what extent is this framework a pretext for the global aims, not only of Soros, but of the microcosm in which he is immersed, that is the question.
Avaaz – Anatomy of a citizen funnel
The « online activism » company Avaaz was co-founded in 2006 by the directors of Res Publica, « a global citizen advocacy group, » and MoveOn, pioneers in internet activism and fundraising for Democratic Party candidates. “MoveOn” originally stood for turning the page on the sexual indulgences of the virile President Clinton in 1998, and the subsequent lying under oath at a time when perjury did not saturate the daily lives of our leaders.
In 2004, it was the tactlessness of the repentant alcoholic Bush Junior, taken in by a family of neo-cons hawks, that made the Democratic camp overflow; it was urgent to wage wars with discretion. In the general uproar, an ambitious 23-year-old, Eli Pariser, is appointed MoveOn executive director, at the time when George Soros is covering the activist unit with dollars, in order to bring down G. Bush Jr., without success.
Two years later, Eli Pariser is co- founding Avaaz, generously propelled by the Open Society, which will fund it, via Res Publica, with $1.25 million from 2007 to 2009, as evidenced by the tax returns of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Open Society, which can be consulted here, there and here on page 87. Avaaz then gives OSF the status of « founding partner ».
After 2009, well on its way, Avaaz revised its cash flow and announced that it « is 100% funded by small online donations from our members, » allowing leader Nell Greenberg to assert her « movement was conceived with the ideal of being completely autonomous and democratic. «
The pedigree of Avaaz’s leading team helps scaling the gap between “ideal” and reality.
Res Publica fellows:
Ricken Patel, Avaaz Executive Director: Named in 2012 « Young Global Leader » by Klaus Schwab’s WEF. Patel has been consulting for the International Crisis Group (official partner of the Open society), the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, the United Nations, and the International Center for Transitional Justice, in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Afghanistan, Sudan.
Tom Perriello: Diplomat for the United States from 2014 to 2016, special envoy to Africa. Appointed in 2018 as executive director of the Open Society Foundation USA.
MoveOn fellows:
Jeremy Heimans: Began his career at McKinsey. Young Global Leader, winner of the Ford Foundation’s « visionaries » award. Other position: Chief Executive of purpose.com, an Avaaz avatar that « builds and supports movements to advance the fight for an open, just and livable world.
Eli Pariser: He is also a board member of accessnow.org, « the new global movement for digital freedoms, » along with Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. But the most interesting thing is that he is very discreet about his role in the Open Society, which does not appear in his Wikipedia entry, nor on his CV published on his own site. One has to dig up the foundation’s activity reports to find out his quite active membership of the Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Program Office, from 2013 (or earlier) until 2016 (or later).
Eli Pariser is presented as the Executive Director of Upworthy, where stands again Chris Hughes, a seemingly innocuous website mixing tabloid and serious subjects; their superficial treatment with a dominantly suggestive and confusing character, evokes an experimental communication laboratory, which fits nicely the theme of this Open Society meeting: « Changing the structure of political persuasion in the digital age ».
Since Avaaz’s management is intimately linked to the power circles of the Democratic Party, there is absolutely no risk of Avaaz pushing initiatives that would contradict its policies, especially since the platform does not offer any means for its « members » (you just have to sign a petition to enter membership) to communicate with each other. The major actions of Avaaz are therefore controlled by the top, which invests millions of dollars in certain campaigns, and puts forward the causes it chooses.
With Tom Perriello and Eli Pariser, George Soros has two direct representatives of the Open Society in Avaaz, which gives him not only a certain control, but a potential initiative power.
The recurring fight for the preservation of bees is juxtaposed with highly strategic and deceptively consensual actions, such as the campaign to ban Gaddafi’s air force from flying over Libya in 2011. Seen from far, what could be more pacifist and altruistic than preventing the bombing of « civilians »? Tom Perriello, a fervent supporter of President Obama and then Democratic candidate for the 2010 Senate elections, could not have been unaware of the political and warlike content of this measure:
– Deterrent deployment of (NATO) weapons with the endorsement of the UN Security Council;
– Risks of destabilization. The resulting total chaos in Libya was predictable.
– As a pillar of the Non-Aligned movement, then promoter of the sovereignty of African countries (project of an African currency…), Gaddafi was the bête noire of the United States since the 1970s. Any educated citizen knows this, especially Perriello.
He may not have been aware of the associated lies, or of the subsequent violation of the UN resolution (NATO would end up illegally bombing Gaddafi’s troops), but surely the Avaaz leaders know the value of their own « simple democratic goal: to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want. »
It’s hard to scrutinize the hundreds of Soros-funded NGOs in this way, but one thing is certain: investing at the right time, with the right people, ensures big dividends in crowd control.
The « open » society, recycling old lanterns
Not surprisingly, the « open » society embraces the most advanced libertarian demands, from drug liberalization to sexual, transsexual, non-binary choices… only here, in Uncle Soros’ country, the profusion of LQBTQIA+ movements is now juxtaposed with an unprecedented regression of women’s rights, the right to abortion being abolished or restricted in about twenty States. Does this mean American society a « closed » society?
The philosopher Karl Poppers, whose essay « The Open Society and its Enemies » illuminated the thoughts of the young wolf of Wall Street, wrote in 1945: « …civilization has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth – the transition from the tribal or ‘closed’ society, with its submission to magical forces, to the ‘open society’ which frees man’s critical potential. »
In his book « Opening the Soviet system, » Soros paraphrases Poppers:
« The traditional way of thinking does not recognize a distinction between the social world and the natural law: the social fabric is considered there to be definitive, just as unalterable as the rest of man’s environment. Therefore, the point of reference in a closed society is always the social ‘Whole’ and not the individuals that make it up. »
Soros does not target the tribes from deep Amazon forest, thus it is their remnants in today’s societies that we must seek. The opposition to abortion is rooted in a certain religious morality related to these « natural laws ». However, this case does not clarify Soros thinking, since his great enemy, the Soviet system, which he considers seriously closed, was in a sense ahead of its time, having legalized abortion as early as 1920, then reauthorized it in 1955 after the 1936 ban. In the United States, it was not until 1973 that the Supreme Court decriminalized it nationwide.
In other words, the « distinction between the social world and natural law » is not strictly a matter of rationality, which Soros does not answer directly. Another argument taken from Poppers is that « closed » societies carry the seeds of totalitarianism, which is all the more reason to shake them up:
« The unity of a Society without change is comparable to that of an organism. The members of a society without change are comparable to the organs of a living body […]. A peasant differs from a priest as much as the stomach differs from the brain. [From Opening the Soviet system, 1990].
In Cuba, a great friend of the Soviet Union, how many sons and daughters of peasants have become doctors?
« In a society without change the individual as such does not exist at all; moreover, the social Whole is not an abstract idea that opposes the ideas of the individuals but a concrete unity that embraces all its members ». [Ibidem].
If we admit these assertions, the question arises then of the criteria of judgment to decree that such society would be in a state of critical closure. It is likely that a survey of the Western public would place Syria at the top of the list. Soros is rather discreet in the Syrian theater, but his more or less direct contribution is indisputable, through Human Rights Watch and Avaaz, among others.
Where do the Syrian people come from?
– 3300 years BC, the Sumerians, ancestors of the Syrians, invented cuneiform writing, this « graphic system [which] forms both the substratum and the prelude to the intellectual culture of nations », building cities like Palmyra at a time when the tribes of Europe were pounding iron in villages, far from non-existent cities.
– The commercial exchanges (dear to Soros) between the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian basins favored religious tolerance (dear to Soros) of all obedience.
– From the period of the French Protectorate from 1920 to 1946, they retained, in addition to a certain mixture of cultures, a State structure of the « Arab Republic » type with an electoral system and a constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.
– In 2008, the free public university had half a million students, 49% of whom were women. It is the base of an upper class that is often bilingual (Arabic-French) or trilingual, and a research center (very efficient in cancerology) that was destroyed by NATO bombs…
We could describe all the operational fields of the Open Society, to end up with same conclusions: the criterion of « closed » or « open » society is eminently relative, and any self-proclaimed judge exposes himself to the crime of ethnocentrism.
The Sorosian concept is further emptied of any substance when it strays into its positive version:
« The open society, according to my definition, is an imperfect society that remains open to improvement. It is a source of hope and creativity, even though it is constantly in danger and even though history is full of disappointments. » [The Truth About the Financial Crisis, 2008].
« … the open society is not a community in the traditional sense. It is an abstract idea, a universal concept. «
George Soros also describes it as the realm of critical thinking, and adds « two twin pillars of [his] own philosophy, fallibility and reflexivity. » These two terms, pompously called philosophical, which he applies to finance as much as to the socio-political domain, contain truisms that can be summarized in one line:
– Fallibility: Errare humanum est. The philanthropic tycoon is not a prophet, and acts in full awareness of his flaws.
– Reflexivity: The action of an entity (living or instrumental) on a thing modifies the thing, which in return reorients the action of the entity on the thing, and so on.
Let us read the original prose anyway: « There is a double connection between the opinions of political actors and the situations in which they participate. On the one hand, their views are transformed into events; on the other hand, events influence their views. I call the first connection the participatory function, and the second the cognitive function. Perception and reality are thus connected by a double feedback loop that I call reflexivity. «
The feedback loop is a regulation technique as old as industry, which consists, for example, in measuring the power output of a generator in order to continuously adjust the generator’s energy production (according to a set point, i.e. a control knob).
George Soros makes a pitiful mistake when he talks about a « double feedback loop », where there is only one: by error (« fallibility » of culture deficiency), he mentally transforms the two ends of a loop (« connections ») in two loops.
The feedback loop is said to be negative for a regulating effect, and positive for a runaway effect.
Example:
Macron increases taxes => The Yellow Vests rebel => State repression runs amok => The GJs revolt…
Soros did not invent explosive powder, the governments have been managing these « loops » for ages. The analogy would gain in relevance in a cybernetic logic of control or social engineering (theorized in the 1950s), applied to a mass of individuals connected to the Internet (the researcher Antoinette Rouvroy speaks of « algorithmic governmentality »), but Soros’s writings are more than 30 years old.
In short, the open society is fallible, imperfect, critical, « a source of hope and creativity », that is, above all, « an abstract idea ». By declaring it a « universal concept », George Soros shows that his conception of democracy is, at best, that of the emperor Augustus.
Fundamental rights are all but abstract, and if they come close to a fragile universal character, it is in the form and substance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 at the General Assembly of the United Nations, by the 58 member countries, minus two refusals and six abstentions, precisely because of the contestation of the universal character of the declaration.
Soros’ integral activism
With his « abstract idea », the philanthropist is at the bedside of a Syrian refugee in Greece, providing language courses and legal assistance, as well as at the top of the Atlanticist strategies where deals, agreements, misunderstandings and wars are made, within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an unofficial den for the elaboration of US foreign policy since 1921, or within its European avatar created in 2007, the ECFR, in which he stands as the godfather, since the Open Society is a major initiator, and Soros rarely misses its annual meetings; He has a central and singular role as a speaker, as in 2010,. …, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, or mingles with panels of specialists answering burning questions, such as « What kind of European order after Ukraine? » in 2015 in Brussels.
This panoramic view of the world is offered to the general public thanks to media creations, where critical thinking is expressed without upsetting the Atlanticist elites. The « Project Syndicate » thus broadcasts, through « 503 platforms », the analyses of « politicians, academics, businessmen and activists from six continents » translated into fifteen different languages, where analysts such as Jeffrey Sachs, or big names such as Klaus Schwab or George Soros regularly write; presented without laughing as a « public service mission », the site displays the Open Society at the top of its list of sponsors.
Illustration through chronology of the intervention in Libya.
In mid-February 2011, the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera, backed by AFP, spreads rumours of « indiscriminate bombings », « massacres » and bloodthirsty « mercenaries » sent by Gaddafi against Libyan civilians. With the exception of a former director of the DST (French secret agency), the intelligence services (MI6, CIA, DST, BND…) do not contradict these allegations, which will prove to be essentially false; however, they know all too well, as well as George Soros logically, that Libya, dangerously rich (oil, 350 tons of gold in the coffers…), was planning African alliances likely to counter the plundering of the mineral and oil resources by Western predators.
The idea of « stopping attacks on civilians by [Gaddafi’s] regime forces » was endorsed by the ECFR on February 25, 2011, in a highly offensive action plan addressed to « Europe » by various members of the think-tank, including British special advisor to Prime Minister Daniel Korski. The lobbying is getting stronger, and it takes barely ten days for Avaaz to announce, as early as March 5, that « 500k messages » have been sent to the United Nations to urge them to vote for a No-fly zone over Libya. In the wake of this, Project Syndicate offers a platform to Secretary of State John Kerry on March 11, who addresses a pre-convinced public to plead, as a good Samaritan, for a « No-Fly zone » that will be decided on March 17 at the UN Security Council, as well as a general ceasefire, much less interesting for Obama and NATO, who will violate the resolution by sending a few tons of bombs as early as September 9, 2011, and probably continuing to arm the anti-Ghadafi Islamists.
This is of course only one chain in the persuasion process. Soros is not really a decision-maker, he is a big cereals farmer who feeds this decision-making ecosystem capable of coldly generating the predictable and deadly Libyan chaos, source of the terrorist conflagration in the Sahel region and of the dramatic outbreak of migrations and drownings at sea. By virtue of his ostentatious status as a wise man of the ECFR, he endorses its orientations and injunctions.
Some might even say that he assumes his share of responsibility when his networks deliver services to refugees. For example, the Greek NGO SolidarityNow, a member of the « European Open Society Network », was created in 2013 at a time when Greece was on its knees but not yet crushed, and when the influx of Africans passing through Libya in the south, and Syrians arriving from the east, was growing. Faced with the « double crisis of the country » SolidarityNow addresses « the socio-economic distress and the reception of a large number of refugees/immigrants », through legal, social, psychological and family support « in cooperation with the municipality of Athens and the NGOs PRAKSIS, ARSIS », with the contribution of European grants.
As Soros says so well, he likes to place himself in situations « far from equilibrium », perfect in this case to weave links with old local associations such as ARSIS and Praxis, and subtly instill his ideology.
We cannot fail to mention the detestable slogan of the « Great Replacement », launched by Renaud Camus in 2010, achieving the feat of annihilating in one stroke of the pen the substance of what he denounces.
Immigration and Hypocrisies
Cheerfully taken up by Marine Le Pen, and now embodied by the candidate Zemmour, the conceptions of Renaud Camus are of a burning actuality. He asserts « that the great waves of North African immigration date from the mid-seventies of the twentieth century, and that the reconstruction itself was then for the most part completed. »
This statement is FALSE. As early as 1946, immigration from Algeria was intense. The proportion of Portuguese immigrants did not equal that of Algerians until 1972, and both began to decline in the 1980s, when the large urban complexes were built. The flow of Moroccans accelerated in 1962.
For Camus and his followers, it was a matter of denying the positive contribution of Maghrebians (« therefore » Muslims), assigned to the most arduous tasks, to the reconstruction of the country.
By erasing the economic character of this immigration, facilitated by the geographical and linguistic proximity (the diffusion of the French language is a positive achievement of colonization), it leaves the hypothesis of a planned and vengeful « invasion », named « counter-colonization », by the countries in the process of emancipation (Algeria in the first place), and especially, buries the main reality: while France makes itself the refuge of many migrants from Africa, it exploits, along with other Western countries, its mineral, fossil, port, agricultural (…) wealth, and prevents the development of an autonomous local industry, either through a lack of constructive cooperation, or through shenanigans to place leaders favorable to short-term French interests.
This is particularly true today for West Africa, which is reflected in the current dynamics of population displacement (see blue curve above).
In other words, the multi-ethnic composition of the French population is the direct mirror of the foreign policies of our leaders, applied for decades or even centuries, and accepted passively or actively by the French who have not risen up against successive governments. However good or bad, its impact on our culture and livelihood is the result of OUR choice.
Renaud Camus prefers to lie outrageously rather than face reality: « The French Empire, in most cases, lasted less than a century. When it ended, the countries that were subject to it recovered or obtained their independence for the first time, and overnight they were masters in their own country… ».
It should be pointed out that those who fight against Françafrique and post-colonial exploitation, generally French radical leftists, are those who participate the most in the reception of people arriving on the territory, very often without papers, without the help of Soros. This is a coherent, human and responsible attitude.
The recent episodes of interference in Libya and Syria, in which the United States and the United Kingdom are in the driver’s seat, and France as follower, can be regarded as new colonial proxy wars, coupled with the objectives of Atlanticist domination. The resulting chaos, insecurity, wars, unbearable situations are driving people to flee.
In this respect, Sorosian NGOs that help migrants are a paltry band-aid in an ocean of suffering, deliberately provoked by the Atlanticist camp in which George Soros plays a key role.
In the tradition of Renaud Camus, some want to erect hermetic borders, defending their own idea of what « the » people – in this case French – should be. In the tradition of George Soros, others want to fluidify the circulation of humans in forced exile, confusing the hospitality of the countries of arrival with the maintenance of the pipes of arrival. In all cases, the primary cause is never tackled head on: that of a warlike geopolitics, devoted to the rescue of an ultra-« liberal » system in perdition, predatory and amoral.
The last Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is capable of denouncing « those who bombed Libya » and generated the « chaos of illegal immigration », pointing a wrathful finger at « Macron’s » France, while forgetting the main actor, NATO… which she swears to support by arming Ukraine; beyond demagogy, nothingness.
It is thus in full quietness that George Soros, through the CFR, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the International Crisis Group or the European Commission, is playing the game of the Atlanticists’ bellicose strategies.
Heavy helmets and dollars – Soros on all fronts
Does the tycoon owe his fortune to his prodigious intelligence and his (not very convincing) theories of reflexivity and fallibility, or to his entre-gens in the high American spheres? It is doubtful, in any case, that his enterprise to destabilize the pound sterling in 1992 did not have any political backing; the billion dollars he made from it was a godsend for his ambitions turned, at that time, towards the countries of Eastern Europe, Hungary as early as 1986, but also the Ukraine in 1990.
The young Soros sharpened his fangs in a bank owned by Edmond de Rothschild, who provided him with the start-up money in 1969 to create Quantum Fund, a hedge fund registered in a Dutch tax haven, co-managed by various investors in total opacity; in short, what we know about George Soros’ fortune and his methods is only the tip of an iceberg with multiple protuberances; there is no proof that Soros philanthropic money is fully his own.
In 1993, George Soros invested 100 million dollars in the Carlyle Group, one year after the nomination to its head of Franck Carlucci, ex-Secretary of State for Defense, that is to say in the turn of the investment fund towards the military-industrial complex. If wars can be profitable, why deprive oneself?
The noise of machine-gun fire did not frighten him too much, since it was in the midst of the Croatian war of independence (1991-1995) that he set up his Open Society Institute of Croatia in 1992, an offshoot of the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation established in 1991 in Belgrade. Sociologist Paul Stubbs reports, « In Serbia, open hostility toward the [Soros Yugoslavia] Foundation began when Soros signed a petition calling for air strikes against Serbian forces to end the siege of Sarajevo. The Foundation was banned by the Milošević regime, by a decision of the Constitutional Court that revoked its registration, in February 1996 [decision was neutralized later on]. »
Disintegration of Yugoslavia – A textbook case.
To understand how the Soros NGOs fit into the Yugoslavian dynamic, we have to go back to 1982, two years after Tito’s death. Not quite recovered from the oil crisis, indebted to the tune of 20 billion dollars, the country « had completely lost its access to international financial markets » and found itself caught in the austerity nets of the IMF and the World Bank; Ronald Reagan promised immediately to « promote the trend toward an effective, market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure ».
Following the visit of Yugoslav Prime Minister Anton Markovic to Washington in 1989, the real shock « therapy » was set in motion: Privatizations, accelerated bankruptcy procedures for loss-making companies, takeover of factories by foreign creditors, increased competition through the reduction of customs protections, breaking up of the welfare state and self-managed companies in socialist manner… At the end of 1990, GDP fell by 7.5%, heavy industry (chemicals, equipment, refineries, electricity) was moribund, more than 20% of industrial jobs had disappeared, the impoverishment was brutal.
The federal power of Yugoslavia – made up of six people’s republics (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia) – can no longer play its role of redistribution towards the less endowed regions, nor can it ensure the socialist pact (which has always had one foot in the East and the other in the West), and it no longer has any room for manoeuvre to maintain national cohesion; embargo sanctions had yet to come.
Everything is ready for implosion, especially since underneath the ethnic and religious patchwork lie animosities from the Second World War, when the heart of the anti-nazi resistance was in Orthodox Serbia, while in Catholic Croatia the Ustashi factions led by the fascist Ante Pavelic had formed a State with Hitler’s support. With appalling cruelty, the Ustasha militia massacred several hundred thousand Serbs, Jews and Roma, before falling to the Serb hands in 1945. Some claim that the nationalist units inherited from the Ustashi were supported by the West in anticipation of the wars of independence, but they give little evidence of this; nevertheless, history leaves little doubt on this subject, for those who take time to trace its course.
The priest Krunoslav Stepjan Draganovic, well established in Vatican circles, was in charge of the « Office of Colonization » of the pro-Hitler Croatian government from 1941 to 1943.
He is described by a CIA agent (page 20 of this report) as follows: « Father DRAGANOVIC is considered a war criminal by many persons. He wore the uniform of colonel in the Ustashi. After the war, he effected the escape of a notorious war criminal from an American POW camp. This statement is based on the sworn testimony of eyewitnesses and on British intelligence reports ».
As the organizer of the « ratline », a network for the exfiltration of Nazis to Latin America via the Vatican, Draganovic was followed closely by the American intelligence services (CIC, CIA…), without ever being questioned; he would have even worked for the CIA until 1962 or 1967. In a secret meeting held in Buenos Aires before 1949, it is mentioned that « 1,300 Croats passed through Argentina », and Draganovic affirms that « there are about 25,000 Croats in Germany, Austria and Italy ».
The Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies has published an edifying work on the Croatian diaspora, which traces the path of the Ustashi elites and second knives in Canada and the United States, from San Francisco to New York throughout Chicago, where the Croatian Liberation Movement (HOP), created in Argentina by the fascist leader Ante Pavelic himself, is based. In a letter to NATO member countries written in 1957, the unpunished genocidal leader quietly offered the services of the HOP for the anti-communist struggle, praising the experience of the « Croatian armed forces now living abroad » in « anti-partisan warfare ». West Germany was the most active, with three nationalist groups led by former Ustashi, who competed to integrate into their ranks the young Yugoslavs who emigrated for economic reasons in the 1960s and 1970s:
– Ante Pavelić’s HNO, and its paramilitary branch HOS.
– The Croatian National Resistance, a paramilitary organization led by Maks Luburić, supervisor of the Ustasha concentration camps, known as the « Croatian Himmler » or « Max the Butcher ».
– The Croatian National Committee led by Branko Jelić; of the three groups, it is the « most moderate » and marginal.
These organizations « helped radicalize many of these new émigrés, as they bombarded them with extremist rhetoric about the nature of the Croatian nation, the Yugoslav state, and struggle between them, » eventually to the point of resorting to financial « blackmail and extortion » of émigrés. The recruitment was successful, as several bombings and assassinations of Yugoslav diplomats were carried out in Europe, as well as a kidnapping in Chicago in 1978. In short, the Ustashi elites most compromised in the genocide took refuge in the Americas and in Franco’s Spain, with the benevolence of the host authorities who, most likely, kept these influential anti-communists warm while waiting for the opportune moment; on the European side, and in Germany in particular, the nationalist base was clearly operational by the time the Wall fell.
It is therefore anything but a coincidence that the future president of the future independent Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, went to Canada in 1987, where he met diaspora prominent figures such as Gojko Šušak, whose father and brother were former Ustashi officers, whom he appointed Minister of Emigration in 1990, and then Minister of Defence from 1991 to 1998. Just before creating the party « Croatian Democratic Union » (UDC or HDZ) in 1990, he published an essay of historical revisionism, in which he relativized the atrocities of the Ustasha death camp of Jasenovac, known (not enough) as « Auschwitz of the Balkans », which Franjo Tudjman requalifies as a « “work camp“ with many fields and workshops », marginalizing the ideological, racist and sadistic character of the mass crimes perpetrated from 1941 to 1945, and minimizing their magnitude by wet-finger re-estimations.
In this way, Tudjman secured the support of the most fanatical nationalists, before, during and after the civil war, since in 1998, the vice-president of the HDZ party, Andrija Hebrang, took it upon himself to exonerate Jasenovac’s chief torturer, Dinko Sakic, who was then hiding in Argentina, citing him as « a victim of historical circumstances ». Sakic’s crimes are described par le menu in the New York Times.
A Serbian-American collective explains the link between Croatian nationalism and Bosnia:
« The Odzak commune [of Bosnia] was, during World War II, the strongest bastion of Ustachism and fascism…. True to their ancestry, members of the Croatian Democratic Union [HDZ] in the Odzak region began publicly threatening and intimidating local Serbs as early as 1990. The provocation and harassment of Serbs in the villages of the Odzak municipality began immediately after the establishment of the national parties of Croats and Muslims… ».
Djoko Goranic, 55 years old, testifies: « Ustasha slogans and symbols were drawn on the village road… and on the fences of Serbian houses…. There is no doubt that everything was organized in connection with the leadership of the HDZ party and the State leadership of the Republic of Croatia. The violence in the night bars, at the crossroads and in the Serbian villages in the area of the municipality of Odzak was intended to stir up tension and war psychosis, the main task of the HDZ fanatics, whose pre-war hooligans and criminals were the ringleaders, making sure that the war from Croatia would spread as quickly as possible to Bosnia… »
The terror reached the point of no return in April 1992, when Serbian civilians from the Odzak municipalities, seeking to flee from the Ustasha and Bosnian Muslim extremists, were captured and interned in Odzak, Bosanski Brod, Slavonski Brod and Orasje: « It is difficult to describe all that happened in these torture places for Serbs and even more difficult to synthesize documents and testimonies of the Ustasha criminal orgies. In short, in these camps, …, the goal was the psychological, physical and biological annihilation of the Serbian entity of the Bosanska Posavina region.
[All the terrifying testimonies, very precise, with names of the victims and designated torturers, places and circumstances, were compiled by the « Committee for the Census of Crimes against Humanity and International Laws » (Odzak, Celebici « concentration camp », list of camps « for Serbs »…), or officially deposited as files to the UN, including the May 24th 1993 one, referenced A/48/177 S25835, or the August 6, 1993 one, referenced A/48/299 S26261].
Back to Soros:
George Soros made his first appearance in Belgrade in 1989, through the opponent radio B92, which he financed alongside USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. After ten years of shock therapy, which Tito’s successors endured without much resistance, Yugoslavia was on the verge of an economic and social breakdown, and separatist impulses were unleashed. American political scientist T.W. Carr gives his take on the facts (emphasis added):
« During late 1989, and throughout 1990, arms flowed from Germany to Croatia to equip militia units. After HDZ party (Croatian Democratic Union) won control of Sabor in the May 30, 1990, multi-party elections, the newly elected President Tudjman formed a National Guard Corps (ZNG). In effect, the ZNG was not a « national » force in the accepted meaning of the word, rather it was the ultra-nationalist, neo-Ustashi military wing of Tudjman’s HDZ political party, in the same way that the « Brownshirts » of the 1930’s acted as the vanguard enforcement wing of Hitler’s National Party ».
The new constitution « pointedly relegating the Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Muslims to second-class status, » is immediately translated into « discrimination against Serbs ».
« One of the most sinister changes was that every identified Serb in Croatia was issued with a new identity card which incorporated the figure 3 as the eight figure in the identity number. The figure 3 thus became the Croatian equivalent for Serbs as nazi Germany’s Star of David… »
« An official UN report by the UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali states that more than 250,000 Serbs were driven out of Croatia and thousands killed during 1991 and 1992 by Croatian ethnic cleansing operations. »
But how does Soros deal with this? The answer is neither trivial nor univocal. We are sure of one thing: the brutal truths described in this chapter, which cannot be ignored and are undeniable in broad terms, are virtually unknown to the general public; the Western media-political apparatus has done a perfect job to control them, to which the Catholic Church has lent a hand, spreading the idyllic vision of a « democratic, anti-communist Croatia aligned with Western values, culture and the market economy ».
Concealing reality from the Yugoslavs, let alone the Serbs, is another matter. To do this, the tools are diversion, marginalization of the subjects that make people angry, promises of the Western Garden of Eden… George Soros does not invest in the media and the training of journalists out of democratic altruism. Beyond the media, he works in the key areas of society, with discretion if necessary. Thus, when in Belgrade a movement quite popular among pacifist students is emerging, the philanthropist cannot remain indifferent. According to leaks released by WikiLeaks in 2012, this movement, led by the group called Otpor! (i.e. Resistance!) which « brought down Milosevic », was « financed by Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, National Endowment for Democracy [NED], Open Society Institute, USAID… ».
This report came from Marko Papic, a Serbian agent for the private intelligence agency Stratfor, seen as the « private CIA » by prominent U.S. newspapers. Moreover, the « assistance » of Otpor! by the « NED and other organizations » is asserted by the US Congress with the aim to serve « the cause of humanity ».
It is therefore worth commenting on a few passages from the little revolutionary manual « How to bring down a dictator », written in 2015 by Otpor!’s proselytizer-globe-trotter, the Serbian Srdja Popovic:
« And then everything changed. After Tito’s death and the collapse of the Soviet Union Yugoslavia fragmented into a series of small states. In 1989, Serbia, under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen, traded Tito’s international vision for a xenophobic interpretation of history ».
« I would talk to Syrians about Milosevic’s wars and show them a picture of Bosnian Muslim corpses dumped in mass graves ».
Whether he is talking about Syria, Ukraine or Yugoslavia, the professional of « non-violence » Srdja Popovic, who teaches his experience in unstable countries – under the Canvas banner from now on -, repeats the same Hollywood mantra; all the evils of the earth are attributable to omnipotent tyrants (Assad, Putin, Milosevic…), and everything that contradicts the official scenario is evacuated with a stroke of the pen. It would be just grotesque if he did not pass under silence, by the same gesture, the tortures and massive exactions undergone by his own compatriots.
« At the time, except if you tuned into an independent radio station like B92 in Belgrade, all you heard on the Serbian airwaves was turbo folk and war talk. It was depressing ».
Here appears again the USAID and Soros-funded radio station, which, obviously, between two nice rock vibes, does not broadcast war news too much harmful for the Otpor!’s sensitive ears.
« The slogan ‘He’s finished’, in its simplicity, was enough for anyone who wanted a future without Milosevic to join us. What we needed was a message, not the nineteen separate platforms of the opposition parties. » [Page 203]
« How is Otpor! organized? Where does Otpor! get its money from? The answer we recommended was: « Otpor! is a leaderless movement… Otpor! is financed by the Serbian diaspora and by ordinary people who want to live free. [Page 94].
« The members of Otpor! were the coolest guys in town at the time, so everyone expected us to drop the activism at least for one night… » [Page 226].
Zoran Didic, Srdja Popovic’s « friend and mentor », became Prime Minister of Serbia in 2001.
« A friend of mine, Boris Tadic… was to become President of the Republic of Serbia [in 2004]. » [Page 228].
Srdja Popovic tries to pass Otpor! off as a free and autonomous organization, at the cost of blatant inconsistencies. The allegiance of Otpor! managers can be seen in the fate of his colleague Jovan Ratković, who, after « coordinating » the anti-Milosevic campaign, will be invited as a hero to Washington, for his contribution to the fall of the « dictator » Milosevic by electoral means, and then appointed by President Tadic as his advisor for relations with the EU and… NATO – a rather « cool! » position.
To get closer to the core business of George Soros, we need to go back in time, during the pacifist initiatives of 1991/92 initiated by women in Belgrade, the Women in Black in particular, inspired by an Israeli movement (demonstrations, opposition to military conscriptions, solidarity actions with the regions…).
The Civil Resistance Movement joined them on February 29, 1992, setting itself up as a defender of Yugoslav citizens, « regardless of the number of countries formed on the territory », promising « rights equal to the rights of the citizens of the countries of the European Community », with a declaration signed by forty intellectuals, artists and sportsmen, among whom:
– Sonja Licht, Director of the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation, then of Open Society Serbia. Sociologist.
– Vladimir Milčin, Director of the Open Society Foundation Macedonia. Theater director and teacher.
– Zdravko Grebo, Director of the Soros Foundation in Bosnia. Professor of Law.
– Nataša Kandić, Director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Serbia, funded by the Open Society. Sociologist.
– Guner Ismail, Minister of Culture of Macedonia from late 1992. Publisher & journalist.
Human resources management
George Soros’ employees and beneficiaries are also his eyes and ears, present in every nook and cranny of social movements, often recruited from academic or influential circles; they are the perfect vectors of his principle of « reflexivity », taking the temperature at one end of the loop, and injecting a few painless demands at the other: In the Civil Resistance Movement’s declaration, the « European Community » falls like a hair on the soup of the ongoing civil war, to which is added the indifference displayed with regard to the preservation of some kind of unity within the Yugoslav territory, two features fully compatible with the USAID-Soros couple aims.
The sociologist Paul Stubbs, an Englishman living in Croatia, interviewed for an academic study the employees of the foundations, who remained anonymous except for Sonja Licht: « Soros heard about me… from the active members of the Hungarian Foundation because I worked a lot with dissident circles ». It was she who « formed the Bureau », by selecting representatives from each region of Yugoslavia, who would become the heads of each Open Society office after country breakup. Sonja Licht is the person of trust, well known to the Hungarian networks and Soros services, where he set up his foundation in 1986, but also the Central European University in the heart of Budapest.
Sonja Licht recruited among the UDJI group which envisaged a « community of citizens and federal entities », partly composed of intellectuals « associated with the Praxis School », active in Belgrade since 1968, and close to the Frankfurt School. The latter, led by the philosophers Adorno and Hockenheimer (in favor of the Vietnam War), was known for its criticism of capitalist consumerism coupled with an anti-communism virulent enough to attract the sympathy of the CIA, which allowed Adorno’s articles to be published in three journals financed by the CIA.
In short, the personalities were chosen to set up Open Society structures that were credible in the eyes of the Yugoslav social-democratic left, without presenting any danger to Euro-American ambitions. A Macedonian official can thus affirm that « each national foundation of the network had its own local integrity and independence, » deciding on « priorities » without interference from the New York office. Besides, the leaders necessarily knew the red lines not to be crossed, and their salary, « seven times that of a university professor » in the Croatian case, invites to self-discipline, not to mention the « network » operation, which requires high-level coordination of local branches, not open to subordinate initiatives.
In the words of sociologist Paul Stubbs, the « key actors » from OSF « involved with a number of other groups…sharing a broad anti-nationalist and human rights orientation such as… the Helsinki Committees for Human Rights » constitute « interlocking networks« . Against the backdrop of the idyllic picture, the strategy to occupy social space is emerging, which is very useful for both declared and undeclared activities. Thus, when the Open Society Foundation of Bosnia-Herzegovina « invested about nine million euros in the media » between 1994 and 2000, in a region stunned by civil war, « a huge amount » according to the employee himself, the interlocking networks proved essential to efficiently train and recruit suitable editors and journalists for the proclaimed « independent » channels, radios and newspapers, to set up programs that reach the population, and to instill disinformation if necessary.
Since 2004, the BIRN, or Balkan Investigation and Reporting Network, has presented itself as « a pool of qualified journalists » established in Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Macedonia, Romania and Serbia, « also present on the editorial level in Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Montenegro, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia »; Several million euros flow in BIRN each year through various embassies and western ministries (USA, UK, Holland, Norway…), through the EU, the European Union and the United States. ), USAID, NED, several German funds (« Stiftung »), and of course, the local Open Society.
Subversion rhymes with discretion
The most subversive activities take place on the periphery of the Open Society platforms. A prominent organization is the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), founded in Serbia in 1991 by Nataša Kandić, a signatory of the « Civil Resistance Movement » (see above).
There is no trace of the Open Society’s contributions on its official website, which appear in extremis under the mention of « benefactor » of the HLC in a Bloomberg BusinessWeek archive, where one learns that Nataša Kandić headed in 2005 « a staff of 70 lawyers », devoted to tracking down criminals. If the great lady had wanted to target Croatian or Bosnian war criminals, she would have established an office in Zagreb or Sarajevo, where they live peacefully, but she settled for Belgrade and Skopje. The ultimate goal is to send the accused to The Hague, to the International Criminal Tribunal (ICC) for the former Yugoslavia.
The least we can say is that Serbs friendship towards Nataša Kandić is not unanimous.
During 2008 summer, activists visited « Soros’ main employee » and presented her with « well-deserved recognition for her tireless anti-Serbian activity: large iron swastika and banner which reads ‘Serbs have the human rights too ». Led by the conservative nationalist and Orthodox « 1389 » movement, these protests do not necessarily reflect the majority opinion in Serbia; let’s dig in.
Interviewed by Paul Stubbs, a member of the Serbian Open Society admits that he and his colleagues were « accused of being paid traitors, spies, but never accused of any financial wrongdoing ». It is precisely accounting documents, obtained in 2016 by the Informer journal, that reveal the extent of Western financial control over various NGOs including the HLC (contacted by the editors, Nataša Kandić did not deny).
In the list of donors, the Open Society (Otvoreno drustvo in Serbian) is the winner with $300,000 over 20 months, alongside the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave $80,000 in 2014; among public donators, the European Commission is the most generous with a cumulative €227,000, ahead of the $52,000 from the American NED; the Swedish NGO « Civil Rights Defense » benefits from grants from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also « from the Open Society Foundations » and the NED, paying 51,500 euros to the HLC, following the principle of communicating vessels.
The UK-based Sigrid Rausing Fund, a major donor of £240,000, is headed by the Swedish heiress of the same name, who also sits on the board of the giant NGO Human Rights Watch, a protégé and official partner of the Open Society. Ms. Rausing also sits on the Advisory Board of the Soros-backed Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which acts as a mega-lobby in The Hague to ensure that everything goes « well » at the ICC.
The line between government and private donors is blurred by the intertwining of geopolitical and economic motivations. The millions of dollars poured in by the Public-Private Corporation of the self-called Free World have admittedly allowed for the conviction of a number of Serbian military and paramilitary war criminals; conversely, the hyper-selectivity of the crimes prepares public opinion, for example, for the massive NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, with civilian infrastructure heavily targeted for three months, including forbidden depleted uranium bombs and fragmentation shells.
Nataša Kandić’s HLC has filed numerous complaints with the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia (OWCP), applying constant pressure to have Serbian military and politicians arrested and tried. These civil actions may be commendable, but they are also necessary to force the Serbian State to let justice take its course.
However, the difficult path to fair justice is cut off by a monumental obstacle: the relentlessness of the Atlanticist camp to focus all the evils of the civil war on the Serbs. As a good student of this monomaniacal doctrine, Nataša Kandić goes against the stated goal of reconciliation between the peoples of former Yugoslavia.
Her partiality is blatantly expressed by the absence, in Nataša Kandić’s published balance sheets, of any denunciation of the scandalous impunity enjoyed by the vast majority of Croatian and Bosnian war criminals. Worse, in her 2016 report, which only has eyes for the « ineffectiveness of the OWCP [Serbian ad-hoc tribunal] » in trying Serbs, she has the audacity to include the Bosnian Muslim commander Naser Orić, accused of repeated and sadistic war crimes, in two footnotes free of any mention of these accusations.
On her HLC site and in the press, the President distributes the points of the verdicts and deliberations, according to a preconceived logic: if alleged Serb criminals are acquitted or receive a lighter sentence than she had hoped for, it means the judicial process went wrong.
Regarding the murder of 49 people during the 1999 Kosovo war, Kandić calls the Serbian court’s decision « unfair to the victims, » with only three Serbian perpetrators receiving 20 years, 15 years, and 13 years in prison; she deplores the acquittal of a police officer, despite « witness Marjan Krasniqi who claimend that he saw him driving a truck loaded with bodies… » The HLC gives opinions in English, without ever translating the verbatim of Serbian hearings, despite the millions of dollars received: in this case, the reader cannot make up his or her own mind about the reliability of a single testimony, rarely accepted to establish any guilt.
On the other hand, when, exceptionally, a Croat is arrested in Serbia and found guilty of war crimes against civilians, Nataša Kandić shifts from victimhood to legalism, claiming with regret that « the Croatian citizen should have been tried in Croatia ».
The Hague – Rear Windows on Court
To remove any ambiguity about Nataša Kandić’s missionary attitude, a quick trip to the Netherlands, where the ICC hosts the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, is necessary.
Let us first look at the « Orić Case », which deals with the « cruel treatment and murder » in violation of the « laws and customs of war » perpetrated in the Srebrenicza region by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Muslim military units, of which Naser Orić is alleged to be one of the main instigators. The indictment of March 2003 lists his key functions:
8 April 1992: Named Police Chief of the Potocari district, near Srebrenicza.
17 April 1992: Commander of the Potocari Territorial Defense
May 20, 1992: « Appointed » Commander of the Territorial Defense of Srebrenicza by the « Crisis Staff » of the territory.
July 1, 1992: Member of the War Presidency as Commander of the Territorial Defense of Srebrenicza.
« All acts and omissions alleged in this indictment occurred between June 10, 1992 and March 20, 1993… »
From the judgment delivered by Judge Agius in 2006:
« By the spring of 1992, combat groups had been formed on territorial bases and local leaders were chosen for their personal qualities, such as courage and achievement. Consequently, a number of them, including Akif Ustić, Hakija Meholjić, … and Ejub Golić… asserted their independence from the first days of the conflict and persisted in this attitude… »
COMMENTS: Reading these few lines, any informed person, any sane Serbian citizen, understands that there is something fishy along the shores of The Hague, where nevertheless also bathes the proud laurel crowning the UN logo.
1/ THE DATES. How could the judges limit the range of crimes « between 10 June 1992 and 20 March 1993 », when the accused Orić, as they themselves specify, began his paramilitary activity as early as 17 April, and extended it until 1995? This is a mystery, because the most treacherous crimes took place in May 1992, when the Serb villagers had had no time to organize, to at least try to defend themselves. Multiple very precise testimonies attest to these attacks and incriminate precisely Naser Orić or his troops, especially on Orthodox feast days, St George, St Peter…
The high limit of 20 March 1993 precedes by one month the intervention of UNPROFOR peacekeepers, whose mission was to demilitarize Srebrenicza and prevent any conflict between Bosnian soldiers inside, and the Yugoslav army outside. In fact, the disarmament of the Bosnian Muslim forces was a complete (and very suspicious) fiasco, allowing them to carry out attacks on Serb villages on the outskirts of the city from 1993 to 1995. This shady and shameful episode, denounced by peacekeepers officers themselves, cause of multiple war crimes, is opportunely evacuated by the Tribunal.
2/ The « QUALITIES« . When, in addition, the judges take on the role of Naser Orić’s lawyers, stating that military leaders are selected by their « personal qualities, such as courage and achievement », the smell of rotten fish starts to fill the hushed halls of the ICC.
As it happens, the « performance » of Naser Orić’s acolytes cited by the judge was recorded in 1993 by the Yugoslav ambassador to the UN, in the duly referenced document A/48/177.
Let us first look at Akif Ustić, who « according to some sources is the deputy of Commander Naser Orić ». Among his alleged performances, he « burned alive four Serb citizens in Oparke » on 1 June 1992; during his sweet childhood, he « tortured his classmate Radosav Andric ».
To the courage, prosecutors can already add the quality of psychotic sadist.
Hakija Meholjić is involved in the murder scene of « four elderly people » on May 14, 1992, but also in the murder of a Bosnian MP, meaning he may have directly contributed to the escalation to civil war.
Meholjić is an « activist of the SDA, » the nationalist Muslim party, founded in 1990 by Izetbegovic, who then led the « Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. »
In addition to courage and sadism, the optional criterion of party membership is added to the process of selecting leaders.
One hesitates to laugh or cry when Judge Agius pleads that these warlords « asserted their independence from the very first days… », as a result of their attitude (« courage… »): in doing so, he evacuates the hierarchical issue (the braves acting on their own behalf) and gratuitously exonerates the chain of command, in particular Naser Orić, but also the local and regional elected officials of the SDA who have the police and administrative means to coordinate the attacks on Serbian villages.
The Serbian report delivered to the UN names about thirty SDA activists and elected officials plus some « extremist Muslims », suspected of being the « organizers of the genocide against the Serbian people ».
!! Do not confuse this accusation of genocide with the verdict of the Hague Tribunal which concluded that the genocide of Srebrenicza was perpetrated between 13 and 19 July 1995 by Serbian military units against Bosnian Muslims in captivity.
3/ The CONTEXT.
The judges forget one more milestone: the self-proclamation of independence by the Bosnian authorities was recognized by the EU on 6 April 1992, two days before Naser Orić was assigned Potocari police Chief.
[ Although Orić was a native of Srebrenicza, he had left the region long ago, and was living in Belgrade at the time of his very timely appointment].
Knowing that Naser Orić himself admits that he is « a grandson of an Ustasha, » which is a strong endorsement of the SDA leader Izetbegovic, who had himself collaborated after 1943 with the Croatian Ustashi, while a member of the « Young Muslims », the court had every reason to investigate his responsibilities as early as April 1992.
By disregarding the events prior to June 10, this is what the ICC prosecutors did not see, or did not want to see: a political, civil and military organization that was able to plan massacres against essentially Serbian populations, often defenseless, at a time when peaceful solutions were still being considered, including by many moderate Bosnian Muslims.
Corollary.
The achievements of « international » justice were written in advance: Naser Orić was sentenced in 2006 to two tiny years in prison, then acquitted and white-washed through the 2008 appeal verdict.
The president of the humanitarian NGO, Nataša Kandić, cannot ignore the context described above. She could not decently applaud these court decisions, risking stoning in the streets of Belgrade, nor could she criticize the prosecutors and judges in The Hague, risking her career offered on a platter by the Atlanticist Coalition, and by Soros in particular; she therefore hide herself behind full mute mode about the caricature of the « Prosecutor v. Orić » trial – a heavy, burdensome, exhausting silence for any person with a conscience.
To complete the overview, and to reward the dear readers who have not yet left us, we could not fail to show that she knows how to speak out, Mrs. Kandić, when, for once, the judges in The Hague boast a verdict that displeases her bosses.
Against all odds, on March 31, 2016, at the end of the « Sešelj Case » hearings, the professor in law and leader of the Serbian Radical Party Vojislav Sešelj was acquitted of the nine charges raised against him, and regained his freedom after more than 10 years – not less – of pre-trial detention in Sheveningen prison. Insolent, arrogant, provocative, recalling rule of law to prosecutors and judges, harsh critic of the ICC, and above all, a radical nationalist, he was the ideal candidate for a good, heavy sentence.
The NGO headlines the next day, with the ad-hoc photo, and a touch of despair:
« Case Sešelj: In times of War, Laws Fall Silent ».
This headline subtly refers to the era of Romans, « who used to say this, to justify their bloody conquests and the murders of their political opponents in civil wars, » as HLC recalls. To better portray Sešelj as a bloodthirsty conqueror, she uses a truncated quote from a speech addressed to Croats living in Serbia: « We are not going to start killing you, of course. We will simply stuff you into trucks and trains and leave you to fend for yourselves in Zagreb ».
Whoever has not read the introduction to these violent words, « we will expel the Croats, exercising the same right that Tudjman exercised to expel the Serbs », does not know that this is a response, vengeful and inflammatory for sure, to the ethnic cleansing that is taking place at the same time, with thousands of Serbs flocking from Croatia to Belgrade, hastily fleeing the danger with a few suitcases, hence Sešelj’s conclusion:
« We’ll even give you the addresses of abandoned Serbian houses and apartments, and you can move in, they’re still furnished and everything. And from here you can take with you… everything you need ».
We are just recalling the facts here; to get a global idea, the verdict of the French judge Antonietti, president of the Chamber that ruled on Sešelj’s acquittal, is available in video and transcript.
The Witnesses Factory
The Sešelj case tells us a lot about the perverse production of testimony in the ICC’s judicial factory where Nataša Kandić flourishes. Judge Antonietti himself can’t believe it, up to the point to integrate as a verdict argument (emphasis added):
« The Chamber has also admitted into evidence the initial written statements given to the Prosecution by witnesses who then partially or completely contradicted their statements when they testified. […]. Similarly, Witness VS-061, upon whom the Prosecution relies heavily, was not convincing. He was caught out on a number of occasions and had to admit that his account contained serious omissions and fabrications. These fabrications concerned essential issues such as the murder of a Croat, Mijat Stefanac, which, according to the witness, was claimed to be the event that made the Croats flee. Under cross-examination, he admitted that this murder had been committed in a cafe in the context of a private dispute… ».
Nataša Kandić’s interference is revealed because of a banal police statement, given by another witness in the trial, Serbian Goran Stoparic, for another case, in Country X where he took refuge with the financial and legal support provided by the ICC to protected witnesses. During the Sešelj trial, the accused, who is defending himself without a lawyer, cross-examined Stoparic on 24 January 2008:
Vojislav Sešelj (VS): « Ms. Kandic got you in touch with people from the American embassy in Belgrade on repeated occasions, did she not, Mr. Stoparic?
Goran Stoparic (GS): I remember one instance.
VS: But you stated it was in several instances, didn’t you?
GS: I now remember one. At that time I might have recalled more… But I’m quite certain that they were people from the American embassy ».
The witness even admits that the president of the HLC lent him her own home keys, and that he stayed there for days! There is every indication that he underwent intense preparations, briefed by the US services and coached by Kandić. Stoparic is an ideal candidate for the Prosecution, as a Yugoslav army fighter throughout the civil war, and a member of Sešelj’s Serbian Radical Party before he was expelled.
The result is quite pitiful, since he forgets his words from one hearing to another, handling historical references that he does not master, confusing the Black Hand, a regicidal group in 1903, with the Black Troika, a Serbian nationalist organization of the 2nd World War. More important, he does not remember details of his written statement, where he claims to have seen Sešelj making a « Hitler-like salute » in a stadium, which he ends up denying as a whole, as if he had not written or said it himself.
One more excerpt:
VS: « Then it was suggested to you to sign a false statement to the effect that the boards of the Serbian Radical Party proceeded in an organised manner to intimidating citizens of Croat ethnicity in Sid and other places in Srem, didn’t you?
GS. Boards? This is a difficult word. It was perhaps some people.
VS. Who gave them this task, who told them to do that?
GS. I don’t know. Maybe they did it of their own accord. In conditions of impunity everything went. […].
[…]
VS. By, Mr. Stoparic, I can see that you’re now retracting in this regard. You said that it was not the boards that organised the intimidation….
GS. I said it could have been somebody’s own initiative. I never attended a session where such orders were issued.
VS. But in the main questioning, you repeated that you exchanged men from one committee to another and therefore, as a person who was not known to the local population, you went to different localities to harass people ».
VS. Yes, but in the examination-in-chief you repeated that you exchanged people between boards so you would go to other boards’ territories [as un –] to intimidate people as unknown people to the locals? «
Stoparic’s claims are deflated one after the other, reduced to rumours, and when he ventures to give names, places or dates, everything collapses. According to him, Jovica Stegic, a Serbian real estate agent that he would have known in 1991 (impossible, he fled Zagreb in 1992), would have « sponsored » a meeting with Sešelj « at that time » (it was held in 1993, when Stegic was mobilized in the army outside Serbia). Since Jovica Stegic managed the exchange of goods between Serbs and Croats, the witness implies that Sešelj’s party benefited financially from the displacement of people. Stoparic’s allegations are undermined by a precise written statement and official proofs from Jovica Stegic’s.
Kandić did not wait for the trial to produce questionable testimony. As early as 1992, she mobilized several Croatian and Hungarian women from the town of Hrtkovci in Serbia, to denounce the persecution they were suffering from the Serbs to force them to flee. In a highly informed counter-investigative book, which has not been the subject of any legal complaint by Kandić, Sešelj tears apart the scaffolding erected by Nataša Kandić. If she has indeed manipulated these testimonies, it is a very serious matter, since this case, which was publicized with great fanfare, has contributed to raising tensions in the whole country. A Hungarian from Hrtkovci corroborates the investigation: « One day, in early 1992, a CNN crew came to my store, I chased them away and told them not to lie anymore…There was a group of several Croats in the village who raised the tension and convinced people to leave…That’s how they scared my wife so much that she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and wanted to leave at all costs… The Croats who left were actually those who were members of the HDZ [Tudjman’s party]… »
[ Note: To get around disinformation, local language editions are a must, even if the propaganda walls are multilingual. Concerning the translation from Serbian, Gogol remains the smartest (deepL is perfect for the others). The above is on page 134 of the open source book].
Let’s conclude with a last exchange:
Sešelj: « … when you started giving your testimony on the very first day, Natasa Kandic also sent you a SMS message?
Stoparic: Yes, and I said as much.
VS: Yes. And she asked you how you were, right?
GS: Yes.
VS: Then she told that you the radicals were wreaking chaos in Serbia, did she not??
GS: Yes, she did.
VS: And what conclusion did you draw from her words?
GS: […]Well, I took the message to actually mean exerting pressure on future witnesses.
VS: Future witnesses. Was not that message actually exerting pressure on you, Mr. Stoparic?
GS: If it was a message or pressure on me, it could have scared me.
It is not credible that Mrs. Kandić, who initially denied these intercepted (and forbidden by her position) mailings, alerts the witness to real pressure from PRS « radicals » at the last moment, at the risk of prompting him to water down such a long-prepared testimony. Stoparic’s family has taken refuge incognito in a Western country, with sufficiently high allowances for him to set up a business there. What he risks, if he slips up, is to lose this precious aid.
This cryptic phrase sounds like pressure to maintain the allegations, or a pre-established code.
In view of the above-mentioned proven facts, Natasa Kandić no longer appears as the human rights activist influenced by her donors, but as a mere agent of American and European services, acting with the support, coercion and approval of embassy officials, during delicate and strategic situations.
What is the role of George Soros in this case?
Apart from the important financial contribution of his foundations to the HLC (12% of visible donations over two years according to Informer), his influence is not obvious. Nastasha Kandić’s sensitive and subversive activities seem to be essentially controlled by the heart of American power and its satellites.
« Soros » is, however, the first name that comes to mind for Serbs when the HLC is mentioned, which is ultimately useful in diverting attention from the political high ground.
One can list the contributions of Soros foundations to NGOs such as HLC as follows:
. A less compromising funding channel than direct government grants.
. The tree that hides the forest of Western interference policies.
. Liaison agent between core power and NGOs?
. A local network that potentially feeds the secondary networks with « raw material »; in this case, for example, useful witnesses for the trials (there is no proof on this point), or first-hand information…
. The basis for developing a vast network of influence and so-called free and independent media, which filter information and promote the activities of these NGOs.
Ethical point of view:
Soros fully adheres to the actions and ethos of HLC, which he has supported since its inception. This NGO is an essential brick in the construction of a radically distorted reality: criminalization and guilt-tripping on the Serbian side, and de-criminalizing victimization on the side of the Western’s allies (Croats, Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina…), which was very useful in disguising NATO as a white knight when it bombed Serbia in 1999.
On this basis, the HLC claims to lead the process of reconciliation between the populations of former Yugoslavia, notably through the RECOM Project, co-founded by the HLC and « managed by Nastaja Kandić ».
It sounds like trying to replicate the South African Truth and Reconciliation dynamics, after spitting on the truths that bother you. Such a controlled process can only bear (crooked) fruit by new generations brainwashed through the denial of whole swaths of historical realities.
Within the framework of the National School of Transitional Justice, the HLC provides training that includes Hrtkovci’s « forced exile, » a 2019 batch with twenty-five « students of law, security, political science and history, activists from NGOs, journalists, law apprentices and history educators [sic]. »
Soros-style open societies are no less fenced in than others; they would not stand without the hypocritical camouflage of ramparts and watchtowers erected all around.
Modes of operation
Affiliated with the Soros family, the Open Society Foundations are the focus of attention, giving a less statist tinge to the networks of « non-governmental » organizations, most of which serve a single political and geostrategic agenda.
In 2018, a Serbian citizen collective wrote an open letter to the National Assembly, giving a vision of long term global impact:
« In this atmosphere, the people have their freedom of expression confiscated, while this freedom is unlimited for the advocates of foreign interests from the ranks of NGOs. »
« Because of the action of the non-governmental sector, which behaves like a foreign agency – today in Serbia there is a whole apparatus that continuously replaces the Serbian State authorities… ».
The ingredients that led to such a totalizing result are:
. The shock: Economic shock followed by the shock of the civil war facilitated and maintained by extrinsic and intrinsic factors.
. The occupation: To be understood in the military sense, but applied to the civil domain. It is the role of the Couple O « N « G + Media (let us call it « COM »), which ends up literally saturating the deliberative space of the targeted society. The destructuration following the shock frees up new spaces, which are instantly invested by the COM, endowed with powerful means and acting according to a partially predefined plan.
. Time: COM takes a long time, on the order of a decade, to create the socio-political conditions that will lead, at the right moment (kairos), to « regime change », newspeak term which blurs distinction between post-election transition or a Coup d’état.
Specific roles of George Soros and Open Society.
1. Local COM development platform.
2. Intermediary (not exclusive) between the power cores and the COM.
3. Active participation in regime change.
4. Work of education and formatting of minds.
Paul Stubbs’ academic study offers us more information, to be read between the lines (emphasis added):
» In Bosnia-Herzegovina, Soros wanted to offer both direct help and to ensure that international humanitarian organisations bore witness to the shocking events unfolding. »
So they would need Mr. Soros to do their work! De facto, the most active human rights NGOs in the field are under Soros’ influence (graduated + to +++):
. Human Rights Watch (+++)
. HLC, Humanitary Law Center (++)
. Helsinki Committees (+)
And as NGOs are nothing without an echo, the entanglements appear at the first scratch: the « founder » of the great journalistic network BIRN, Gordana Idric, worked as « research director of the Humanitarian Law Center [HLC] », as well as Human Rights Watch! Such a small world is friend George’s…
For the record, the same Gordana Idric offered to the Monde Diplomatique of September 1995, an article about scolar indoctrination of children in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, where truths and elements of propaganda are thrown in a jumble, without decoding, leaving the reader in a state of advanced mental confusion.
On regime change:
A member of the Serbian OSF interviewed by Stubbs: « Of course, we never supported political parties, because that was crossing the line. But we supported the resistance movement in different ways »; one of the roles of the OSF is « to create a critical mass of people who can push for democratic change ».
Paul Stubbs: The OSF was a key actor, both » ‘international’, part of an increasingly coordinated group of foreign donors working on supporting key civil society actors, and ‘domestic‘, being a hub for anti-regime intellectuals some of whom played a key role in the very groups created within civil society to bring about change and, indeed, subsequently, in new ‘think tank’-like strategic partnerships with the new government. »
The goal of overthrowing the current government is thus fully embraced by the Open Society actors themselves; that the foundation has funded the Otpor! youth movement, and many others, finally appears commonplace.
Question: Isn’t it natural to assist the democratization of a country, especially if local forces are involved?
Answers: Even in the idyllic case where the « Free World » Coalition would have the sincere intention of promoting free democratic practices, without blackmail, a wall rises: the intrinsically corrupting nature of easy money. Millions of dollars poured into a few select organizations in societies facing brutal impoverishment have inherently perverse effects.
The objective to disintegrate Yugoslavia and to weaken as much as possible what was left of it (i.e., a State not aligned with the EU and NATO) was achieved too quickly for the contribution of « soft power » methods to be decisive; if Slobodan Milosevic had still a chance to win the 2000 elections for the presidency of Yugoslavia (moribund but still existing), it was as a result of the 1999 NATO bombings, which reinvigorated his party in spite of the growing grievances of the Serbs against him. Since Milosevic’s defeat was only partially provoked, it did not especially exacerbate frustrations among the already exhausted, skeptical and disillusioned Serbian population.
In Ukraine, the International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), set up by Soros in 1990, has had more than 24 years to place its pawns, during which it « supported 18,032 projects » for « 55,000 activists and organizations ».
It was in two stages, the 2004 « Orange Revolution », and then the 2014 « Revolution of Dignity », that a regime exclusively oriented towards the West was installed. The key actors in the events of December 2013 to February 2014 were the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and the far-right groups and parties, which provided violent activists seasoned in street fighting, benefiting from popular, partial and divided support, centered in the west of the country.
George Soros, « just back from the region, » declares to CNN on May 25, 2014, that his « foundation…is playing an important role in the events that are currently unfolding [in Ukraine]. »
He thus assumes his active participation in the overthrow of power, while remaining silent about the nature of the government established three months earlier, which includes no less than two ministers from Praviy Sektor, i.e. Right Sector, a predominantly nationalist and fascist paramilitary grouping (including Sergei Kvit, Minister of Education), plus four ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, from the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party led by the anti-Semitic anti-Russian Oleg Tiagnibok, a Nazi salute enthusiast (this is not a rumour this time), but also his ex-buddy from the Nazi-sounding Social-Nationalist party, Andreiy Parubiy, appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, together with his deputy Andreiy Biletskiy, a pure Nazi, advocate of the « racial cleansing of the nation » and of the « Third Empire », not to say Reich.
The Ukrainians of the east and south regions, the majority of whom are of Russian descent, who know perfectly well the Russophobic fascism embodied by these characters or entities, and who are challenging the legitimacy of the unelected government in their own right, are gathering en masse to demand a democratic solution, which can only come through the federalization of the territories, the only way to guarantee their security and freedom of conscience. On May 25, 2014, the response of the new authorities, intransigent, provocative, repressive and then criminal, is already well underway.
[Read here our analysis of the Fascist Realities of the Ukrainian Euromaidan State; revolution and coup are not always distinguishable, you will find there the objective elements to make the difference].
The Ukrainian trajectory provides the definitive proof that the « democracy » promoted by Soros is essentially reduced to a sales pitch at the service of the Atlanticist domination system.
On the corruption of minds and structures:
Cultural, artistic and educational circles are the prime targets of any subversive enterprise.
The Soros entity in Ukraine writes: « The International Renaissance Foundation’s support for the modernization of Ukraine’s educational system in the early 1990s included commissioning educators, academics, administrators, and civil society groups to write, edit, and publish hundreds of school and university textbooks, helping to transform the way those subjects were conceived and taught ».
This is a great opportunity to get into the knowledge production and transmission structures of a nation, to gain a comprehensive understanding of curricular content, and to build valuable relationships of trust; we know, for example, that many research grants are offered by NGOs, including Open Society. Promising students potentially benefit from these networks in order to enter university curricula, especially if they choose the right subjects of study.
Between the student who wants to do his thesis on the friendly ties between the European and Ukrainian peoples, and the one who is studying the ancestral ties between them and the Russian peoples, we know today which one has a future. But in the 1990s and 2000s, when these options were open, what influence could the IRF have had?
What is certain is that the IRF did not flinch when, after 2014, history books appeared in schools and libraries praising Ukrainian nationalists guilty of despicable mass crimes during the Second World War against Jews, Poles and Roma. In the book below, co-authored by the chief revisionist historian Volodymyr Vyatrovych, Stepan Bandera is portrayed in comics as the valiant leader of peasants determined to fight for the « liberation of Ukraine ».
By limiting themselves to the period 1930-1938, the authors dodge the worst. If George Soros does not yet know the fate reserved for his Jewish co-religionists, on June 30, 1941 in Lviv and elsewhere in the following days and years, by the militiamen of Stepan Bandera’s OUN-B, then he should urgently consult the open archives of the CIA and the Nuremberg trials, or the wikipedia file (and its historical sources) of the military leader Roman Shukhevych, or of the OUN-B ideologues Yaroslav Stetsko and his wife…
But if the man is not an impostor, he already knows it, closing his eyes in the name of « higher » objectives, annihilating all morals and memories, including those of father and mother.
We are not talking here about a few books put in a box, nor about miscellaneous facts from another time. Carefully thought out, the mind conditioning combines historical denial, fear and quietening. NATO booklets are distributed, where little children discover that « NATO is more than security, it is care and responsibility ».
The indoctrination by anti-Russian animosity has been rising to a crescendo for eight years, leading to scenes of a historically proven pathology. In a school in Nikolayev, during an afternoon snack organized by the teachers and parents of the pupils, according to the WM channel, the children were served « free » drinks stamped « blood of Russian babies »!!???
As always, the conditioning of people relies on media landscape. It was necessary to build the common enemy, an external enemy, Russia. Soros’ IRF highlights nine accomplishments, including this one: ‘Since 2014, the foundation has been among the funders of Stop Fake, an initiative led by two university professors dedicated to exposing lies and myths about Ukraine. The twitter showcase makes no mystery about the origin of these « myths »:
Created on March 2, 2014, 3 days after the formation of the new government, the StopFake project is immediately part of a media war context, before the slightest embryo of civil war has yet emerged. Its propagandist counter-propaganda, relatively subtle, practices high-frequency lying by omission – the beloved « fact-checkers » ingredient.
Case in point: In 2019, the Ukrainian parliament announces festivities in honor of the nation’s « hero » Stepan Bandera, including the printing of dedicated postage stamps and special sessions in schools. A « pro-Kremlin » newspaper relies on a CIA document to denounce Bandera crimes. StopFake answers that « in fact, there is no CIA document », because the CIA refers to a press article; move along, nothing to see… Except that, in the same document, the field CIA agents give some clues.
Footnote: « Fascist or radical? Has been called both ». In his book Hitler’s Shadow, the academic American historian Richard Breitman, specialized in Holocaust, is categorical: « Bandera’s wing (OUN/B) was a militant fascist organization, » which « pursued its own ethnic cleansing policies complementing German aims ».
StopFake washes it all down, citing a Ukrainian article: « After his release from a Polish prison » in 1939, Bandera « was again arrested by the Gestapo » in 1941; he even made « threats » against the Reich Chancellery.
The artifice, classic and perverse, is a lie by allusion. While omitting the various CIA mentions, including the handwritten one, StopFake gives a version manipulated by others (the Ukrainian newspaper). The fact that it was the Wehrmacht (German army) that liberated Bandera from Poland (why then?) is not mentioned; the reader imagines that he was persecuted by the Gestapo, whereas on the contrary, the excellent relations between Bandera’s OUN and the Reich are attested by various meetings in Vienna in the 1930s. The Gestapo did indeed arrest the leaders of the OUN in August 1941, following their self-proclamation of the State of Ukraine: the trust that Hitler placed in nationalists who were too Slavic to be « Aryan » had reached its limits.
Bandera would be detained in the « Sachsenhausen concentration camp », he is in fact next door in the Zellenbau wing, reserved for eminent prisoners such as former French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud. It was from here that Bandera and some comrades sent the most famous « threats » in a letter sent on October 1, 1943 to SS celebrities such as Goebbels and Himmler. The OUN-B reaffirmed to the Nazis its « new contribution to the war for the destiny of Europe », and negotiated the contribution of its Ukrainian forces in terms perceived by the Nazis as blackmail, at a time when they were stuck against the USSR wall. The very collaborative « threats » of Bandera will delay his release by the Gestapo for only ten months.
[Note that the « new contribution » answers the initial « why then? »]
Reality is like modelling paste, when you control the media – and the rewriting of history has been in full swing for at least thirty years, thanks to motivated academics.
StopFake also publishes in-depth articles, in 13 different languages, without ever dealing with the Bandera problem, so they don’t worry about whether the Ukrainian state worships a fascist responsible for atrocious racist mass crimes, despite the converging conclusions of many historians from the East and West.
Today, black suns, swastikas and Hitler salutes proliferate on the front line to the point that CNN and Euronews can no longer keep up with the censorship… but let’s be reassured, France 5 still has it, the image on the right of the flag was enough for them.
By translating more than a hundred articles from the « Atlantic Council » platform, Stopfake does not hide its direct lineage with NATO. The resulting pseudo-reality, polished, distorted, amputated, is then used as a reference to attack the « Russian propaganda ». This would be almost banal if the first victims were not the Kremlin, but the millions of Ukrainians of dissident opinion or identifiable origin, and ultimately all Ukrainians; a consequence of the political-media blockade was the impossibility of any debate on the true origins of the civil war, and therefore of any path towards peace, the marked outcome of which is this ongoing war, anticipated and prepared by the United States and NATO, at the best of their warmongering shape.
The Purloined Letter
Walking on the steps of George Soros stretches the journey in time more than space, as the scale of societies transformation is not indefinitely compressible. We have covered only a fragment of his global playground, with the aim of demonstrating a certain number of facts, drowned in the fog of pretences.
These facts only confirm the observation of Washington Post associate editor David Ignatius, a connoisseur of his CIA neighbours: as far back as 1991, he placed George Soros in a select circle of « overt agents » who « did overtly what the CIA did covertly… »
To hide what you can never really hide, stick it in front of people’s eyes, they will see what you want them to see; this is the old sleight of hand whose mystifying effectiveness Edgar Allan Poe demonstrates in his story The Purloined Letter.
The concept of the open society adds to this trick an attractive brilliance, an overflowing concentrate of philanthropic benevolence. We have seen that when Soros tries to define his concepts, he wanders into scientific phenomena he doesn’t understand (for pity’s sake, we’ve spared you his wanderings into quantum physics), or struts around with narrow philosophical notions that he merely paraphrases, placing Karl Poppers alone at the center of the world of ideas. The resulting vacuity confirms us in the conviction that his « open society » is a pure pretext for foreign interference.
A strong sign of the Soros-like closure of societies is the blatant lack of criticism in the mainstream press, which spills over in drooling praise for the great man, or in indignant attacks on anyone who doesn’t see him as the perfect philanthropist; from this opinion coitus emanates the musty perfume of this one-track thinking dear to totalitarian virtue dealers.
Soros presents himself as a fervent anti-Soviet system, fighting against totalitarianism and for democracy. He has nothing profound to say about the latter, the flexible « open society » substitute takes care of it alone. Let’s dig for him, starting from the principle of separation of judicial, legislative and executive powers.
Soros invests heavily and officially in justice issues. The OSF informs that it « works closely with the International Criminal Court (ICC), helping it function as efficiently and effectively as possible. » The Justice Initiative assists advocates « in gathering and presenting information of use to the ICC… and contributes to the building the capacity of ICC staff… »; furthermore, with the « Coalition for the ICC » (see above), Soros and associated NGOs carry out permanent lobbying there.
One recognizes the Sorosian pattern of control through benevolence, applied here to « transitional » Justice, and we have seen with Nataša Kandić and the HLC how « information of use » is gathered.
With such respect for the independence of justice, the democratic triptych has already lost one branch.
Ukraine sheds light on his vision of executive power: Soros publicizes hid active contribution to the removal of a democratically elected president, the main cause of the current absolute disaster.
De Gaulle is spinning in his grave
Open Society Foundations in France: « In Western Europe, in countries where democracy is firmly established, we focus on helping individuals and governments find solutions to the social, economic and political challenges generated by globalization… ».
Is Europe so colonized that an American tycoon would allow himself such intrusive paternalism?
For sure, NATO bases are firmly established world-wide, with their procession of exogenous interests carried by our ventriloquist leaders; in France, democracy is collapsing while experts in worn-out rhetoric share successively the Presidency armchair. Macron President, re-elected with a record 35% of non-votes and only 38% of registered voters, despite the eternal contribution of the scarecrow Le Pen and the media machinery, has delegated executive power for three years to « Defense Councils », sanitary here, energetic there, presided over by who knows who, by definition of « constitutional » vagueness and huis-clos.
What is the OSF doing in France?
It has launched the Mobilization Accelerator, to promote « citizen engagement in public policy-making », the equivalent of a few patches to bail out a dinghy riddled with stab wounds.
For twenty years, OSF has been working on the debate « on integration policies », « alongside the Muslim community ». Personally, I have seen many neighborhoods, known descendants of Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Chileans, families … but a « Muslim community » organized, never.
A study with the CNRS researchers on the impact of police racial profiling in train stations.
The OSF explicitly supports the International Observatory of Prisons and the League of Human Rights (LDH). The latter has been especially illustrious during the Covid period, watching the trains go by like an overfed cow, or swapping its rights protector’s hat for that of universal prescriber of experimental treatments.
In short, if we stick to the OSF literature, its activity in France is marginal. This can be explained in part by the great efforts made on the central instances of the European Union (ECHR, Commission…), the benefits of which benefit the 28 member countries; nevertheless, we need to understand this solidly established confidence in the capacity of « France » to line up in battle order at the slightest bugle call from the depths of the Atlantic Ocean.
This confidence is notably reinforced by the decaying state of the civil structures which, until a more or less recent past, formed the safeguards on which the average citizen thought he could rely. The roads that used to lead to Rome, lead to desolation, whatever the field covered: intellectual, academic, scientific circles, trade unions, political parties, NGOs of all kinds, large associations under the 1901 law…
Created in 1898, the LDH was a pillar of France, land of Human Rights; may its soul rest in peace.
The ATTAC association, spearhead of the alter-mondialist movement, firmly opposed to neo-liberalism, main organizer of the World Social Forums, leading opponent and critic of the TCE in 2005 (« Treaty establishing a European Constitution »), is now a shadow of its former self. On the conflict in Syria, its indignations still pass for naive, at best, in 2013, but it locks itself up until 2021 in a low-end propaganda, shabby, uneducated and radically denying the murderous Western interference, in a public call signed by the LDH (still), the PS, the NPA, EELV, the MRAP, Union Syndicale Solidaires, Ensemble (… ), an appeal that sounds like a praise to the lawless cynicism of NATO allies (see on this subject our edition The Western art of disguising its demons).
As for his position on Ukraine, it is matched only by his unwavering blindness throughout the years 2014-2022; on these grounds, it is the erectile pleasure of any NATO General, raised on the milk of hawks born in the USA, that ATTAC risks provoking.
Only the NPA candidate « Poutou2022 » goes further, without shocking his comrades too much, by declaring himself in favor of sending arms to Ukraine. No one had yet imagined the « New Anti-Capitalist Party » as a NATO communications agency. Everything happens.
Applying the criticism to the prism of domestic politics, the observation is generally similar: deplorable.
We do find a few relevant, isolated, courageous, and honest intellectuals, but they are all hated or harassed by the academy, and of course ignored by the media.
As for finding any structure that has maintained its integrity, it is the story of the needle in the haystack. To give a counter-example, it seems that the Voluntary Reapers of GMOs have managed to maintain coherence between their struggles and their political positions; they function by regional entities (Rhone-Loire…) and benefit from a salvific anchoring on the ground. Who says ideological coherence says financial coherence. Its balance sheets, quite stable over 15 years, speak for themselves:
. Negligible public subsidies. In case of a pro-GMO governmental turn, it is prudent.
. Private subsidies, around 200 000 euros per year, distributed among a dozen donors in line with the Reapers’ line (BioCoop, Humus Foundation, Nature et Découvertes…)
. A weakness: almost 50% of the donations come from a single foundation, Leopold Meyer for the Progress of Humankind (FPH). Launched by a Swiss humanist scientist, the FPH exclusively supports initiatives that perfectly match the vision of the Reapers. This weakness is therefore also a strength.
On the other hand, ATTAC, whose international influence was a major threat to the establishment, was inevitably in the crosshairs. It is always possible to infiltrate such a structure, but the safest and most effective way is to identify the harmless tendency (for the system). The French-American Susan George was originally vice-president of ATTAC-France, and is still the association’s honorary president today.
She presides over the Transnational Institute (TNI), which is mainly financed by the Netherlands (Foreign Affairs), Sweden and the EU, and by the Open Society and Rockefeller Foundations, for about 20% of the donations. It is difficult to imagine a worse configuration in terms of independence, to deal with subjects as strategic and complex as the Burma conflicts (a major geostrategic axis for the China-US duel) or the liberalization of drugs, Soros’ hobbyhorse, considered from the angle of « Drugs and Democracy ».
The alter-globalist passionaria thus works unabashedly with the millions (4 or 5 annually) of the private champions of unbridled globalization and their associates in the European ministries. Doesn’t she have a gigantic ethical problem?
In any case, Susan George continues to accompany without batting an eyelid the endless wreckage of ATTAC, which has gone from being a solid landmark to an invertebrate mollusc. Its case is unfortunately not the exception, but rather the rule.
On the academic side, one only has to throw an eye to the EHESS, which trains the top of our humanities and social scientific elites, to risk losing it. The EHESS Endowment Fund gets the « generous support of Mayer Brown France, » a Chicago-based law hub that links the school with private partners. The fund facilitates « contacts with the socio-professional world », or finances student aid, research contracts… With a click of the mouse, Mayer Brown’s political neutrality is displayed in full splendour:
One of the EHESS partners (we should look for the others…) offering student grants, based on the presentation of a thesis project and CV, takes on the sweet sound of RBC Capital Markets, perfectly matching the storefront of the Canadian « investment bank »:
The future diplomat, historian or political scientist from the EHESS, erudite citizen whose job is to know how to decode events, is warned in advance: in this democracy so firmly established, his possible dissidence will provide him with solitude and dry bread.
We do not have the means to evaluate precisely the impact of the OSF activities, declared or not, whether on a given structure or on the whole of French society, the OSF being often inseparable from other subversive agents. In our seemingly stable countries, the results are less blatant than in the eastern countries discussed here; an important reason is that the intrusion of the United States into our internal cultural and political affairs, since 1945, has been camouflaged and seriously underestimated.
What is « firmly established » in this Europe under American tutelage is not democracy, but the colonization of minds. All efforts to persuade the people, proper to representative democracy, have been progressively abandoned until sinking into the era of brainwashing, of consciences short-circuiting, of the realm of the unspeakable ignominious, which is made possible only by the systemic lie and its procession of false realities.
All this is infinitely costly in terms of collective morality, economy, pride and freedom for some, in terms of suffering, human lives and destruction for others.
George Soros, as a character, a concept and a company at the same time, a bourreau and a victim, a benefactor and a profiteer, a hostage and a hostage-taker, a billionaire and a miserable at the same time, gives a symbolic as well as operational representation of this cost for which mankind has not finished paying the price.
Of the natural laws venerated in « closed » societies, there is one:
From darkness springs the light…
Du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes 
Laisser un commentaire