Posts Tagged ‘George Soros’

George Soros’s worst nightmare is about to become a reality in a key European country – France.

Francois Fillon, former French prime minister and member of Les Republicains political party, delivers his speech after partial results in the second round for the French center-right presidential primary election in Paris, France, November 27, 2016.

In an interview to Le Monde, the likeliest winner of the coming presidential election Francois Fillon called NATO’s promise in 2008 to take in Georgia and Ukraine as “irresponsible.” For Soros, who in his recent article saw Europe as a battleground for a Manichean fight between “democrats” and “dictators,” this must be a sure sign of “Europe falling under the influence of Vladimir Putin.”

In reality, Russia’s hopes for France are much more modest. They are nothing like the monsters which Mr. Soros creates in his imagination. Contrary to the fake generalizations in the mainstream press, Russia has been looking for understanding not so much in the so called far-right parties inside the EU countries as in the established “center” of European politics. Francois Fillon and his Gaullist party The Republicans represent exactly that – the moderate “right of center” in the French politics.

In the years that followed the worsening of relations with the West after the Kiev coup in 2014, Russia invited even the former president Nicolas Sarkozy, the main architect of the Western intervention in Libya, to several forums in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The aim was not “to dominate Europe,” but to find in France a minimally sensible politician, who would not see Russia as a “clear and present danger” (a preferred expression of French Russophobes). Finding such politicians in France would set a stage for a dialogue – an antonym to Mr. Soros’s “color revolutions,” touted by the Western media and despised by the people in the “revolutionized” countries, from Syria and Serbia to Georgia and Ukraine.

This aim of a dialogue could not be achieved through the cruel and duplicitous Sarkozy, who only advised Russia to remove its countersanctions against Western foodstuffs “in a gesture of goodwill.” (Many a previous gesture of this kind from Russia did not deter NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders or any other hostile moves from the US and the EU.) But Russia suddenly found a lot of sympathy among the less elitist French politicians, who represented the pragmatic interests of French business, and not the imperial designs of “spreading democracy” around the globe.

In April 2016, the French parliament, the National Assembly, recommended the lifting of sanctions against Russia.

And now Francois Fillon, an unexpected winner of the primaries in the French rightist party The Republicans, is voicing similar ideas about EU-Russian relations in general. To an unbiased observer, these truths are simple enough to be coming out of the mouth of babes, but for the mainstream media they are dangerous heresies.

“Has the West always been a reliable partner for Russia?” Fillon asked himself rhetorically during a recent interview to Le Monde daily. “Didn’t we deceive Russia on Libya, on Kosovo, on the economic partnership with the EU?”

Despite his previous characterizations of Russia as a “dangerous” country, Fillon obviously went beyond the limits of the European mainstream on Russia when he called NATO’s invitation for Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO in future “irresponsible.”

“Why did we need to deploy anti-missile defense right near the Russian border? We made a lot of mistakes,” Fillon said in that same interview.

Instead of countering Mr. Fillon by arguments, French politicians and mainstream media prefers “trolling” him by alleging he has “personal connections” to Russia. So far, the only revealed connections were Mr. Fillon’s two visits to Russia in the framework of the Valdai Discussion Club (an organization bringing together people with all kinds of views on Russia, including some very critical ones). Also, Fillon and Putin were prime ministers of France and Russia respectively in 2008-2010 and as such they exchanged a few friendly messages. So much for “personal connections.”

This, however, did not deter Alain Juppe, Fillon’s rival during the primaries of the French right, to “warn” his adversary against “excess of vodka during his meetings with Putin.”

This cheap insult, however, did not play well with voters, who preferred Fillon to Juppe, making the former prime minister the main candidate of the center-right Republicans.

The lesson also did not go down well with Manuel Valls, the former Socialist prime minister, who is going through the leftist primaries right now in the hope of challenging Fillon later this year during the presidential election. Valls said he would “defend France against both the United States of Trump and Putin’s Russia” if elected the president.

Will Russophobia play out for Mr. Valls? There is a strong doubt about this. Valls has already lost the first tour of Socialist primaries to the little known “red and green” candidate Benoit Hamon.

“People like Valls just don’t understand that there is a certain fatigue about business as usual in Europe, and Russophobia is a part of the business as usual there,” said Gevorg Mirzayan, a specialist on foreign relations at the Institute of US and Canada in Moscow.

Hopefully, the Russophobic part of the business as usual will come to an end. Russia wants only as much as that – and legitimately.


Business magnate George Soros arrives to speak at the Open Russia Club in London, Britain June 20, 2016.
President Donald Trump came to power just in time to prevent billionaire George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton from achieving a Trans Pacific free trade deal hidden from the public, Wall Street hedge fund manager and financial analyst Mitch Feierstein told Sputnik.

“George Soros and Clinton Inc. were nearly able to declare ‘Mission Accomplished’ on their vision of establishing an opaque ‘New World Order’,” Feierstein, a hedge fund manager who has spent 38 years working in the New York, Tokyo and London global financial markets, said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Trump announced that he was scrapping the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that his predecessor President Barack Obama had sought to complete during his eight years in office.

“Forget Soros’s New World Order for now because a new sheriff, Donald Trump, the 45th US President arrived in Washington promising to drain the swamp. TPP is a now history and it will be interesting to see who is naked at low tide,” Feierstein noted.

The top-secret TPP free trade agreement was one of the worst trade deals ever crafted by Washington’s pay-to-play culture of corruption, Feierstein stated.

“How could any rational individual or sovereign be supportive of a secret ‘trade deal’ with zero transparency and legal language drafted by multi-national corporations?” he asked.

The TPP was deliberately crafted to ensure a form of “globalization” so that these same corporations who designed the “rules” could operate in the dark with total impunity while stripping member nations of their sovereignty and denying consumers of all their rights and protections, Feierstein explained.

“TPP was Obama’s ‘Crown Jewel’ achievement after 35 years of failed neoliberalism funded by oligarchs for the benefit of oligarchies,” he observed.

Feierstein is a British-American investor, banker and writer who has worked as a columnist for the Daily Mail and currently works as a columnist for The Independent and the Huffington Post.

Neo-Liberal billionaire George Soros and other wealthy Democratic donors are meeting to design a resistance strategy to undermine President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda when he takes office, the media reported.
The Democracy Alliance donor club is sponsoring the three-day conference which kicked off on Sunday at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington, DC, the Politico newspaper reported on Monday.
The group will focus on devising a strategy to combat the “massive threats from Trump and Congress in 2017,” the report claimed.
US House of Representatives minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Elizabeth Warren are expected to attend, according to the report, along with a slew of labor union and liberal group leaders.

Confirming what many had suspected when viewing the sudden and intense collapse into anrchy that occurred in Charlotte this week, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN’s Erin Burnett:

“This is not Charlotte that’s out here.  These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals.

“We’ve got the instigators that are coming in from the outside.  They were coming in on buses from out of state.  If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night.  I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs.  They’re not coming from Charlotte.”

As shocking as this statement is, it should not be a total surprise. 18 months ago, as the riots flared in Ferguson, there was one man pulling the strings of this ‘domestic false flag’… George Soros. In an apparent effort to  “keep the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August,” liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.

As The Washington Times explains,

 There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.

Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with

Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.

Still not buying it? As The New American recently reported, Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor. 

 That was before hackers with published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM.

Those same documents reveal the reason for OSF bankrolling BLMthe “dismantling” of America so that it can be recast according to the vision of Soros and his leftist cohorts.

The communist-on-its-face nature of these and other demands of the organizations under the BLM umbrella are a clear indicator of the real intent of BLM. The deep-pocketed funding by the likes of Soros, the Center for American Progress, the Ford Foundation, and Borealis Philanthropy show that BLM is the means, not the end.

BLM is little more than a tool of social revolutionaries hell-bent on destroying America so they can build their long awaited dystopia which they attempt to pass off as a utopia.

So with Hillary’s poll numbers decling rapidly, and a debate looming that she would desperately like to be focused on domestic division as opposed to every email, pay-to-play, foreign policy misstep, and cough or stumble she has taken; is anyone shocked that ‘out of state’ protesters would turn up in Charlotte suddenly turning a peaceful but angry protest into tear-gas-filled deadly riots? And who is a big donor to Clinton?

George Soros: $7 million

Financier George Soros founded what would become the Quantum Fund in 1969 with $12 million. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he’s now worth $24.7 billion and continues to invest through Soros Fund Management, a family firm. As a political donor, Soros has been mercurial. In 2004, he contributed $23.5 million to organizations opposing George W. Bush’s reelection effort. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to both Clinton and Barack Obama, and that was it. Soros’s Open Society Policy Center, the advocacy arm of his philanthropic network, spent $8.2 million on lobbying Washington in 2015. It focuses on international human rights, immigration, foreign aid, public health and criminal justice reform, among other issues. Since 2003, Soros has contributed $54 million to federal candidates and committees.

While claiming to be a grassroots organization formed in response to the prevalence of police violence, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is actually 100-percent pure Astroturf. With coffers bulging with millions of dollars from George Soros, the Ford Foundation, and other deep-pocketed leftist individuals and groups, BLM is little more than a front organization for these leftists and their agenda to reshape the very fabric of American society, culture, and law.

As The New American recently reported, Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor. That was before hackers with published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM. Those same documents reveal the reason for OSF bankrolling BLM: the “dismantling” of America so that it can be recast according to the vision of Soros and his leftist cohorts. As we reported then:

The relevant portion of the report says:

The killing of Freddie Gray in April helped spawn weeks of peaceful protests by Baltimore residents and allies from the #BlackLivesMatter movement that were temporarily interrupted by a period of unrest that lasted less than 48 hours and resulted in some injuries and millions of dollars in property damage to neighborhood businesses. While many lamented the damage done, the overwhelming sentiment is that the uprising has catalyzed a paradigm shift in Baltimore that offers opportunities for major justice reforms.

In particular, recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform. Building on our existing networks and programs, OSI-Baltimore will focus investments on: 1) creating a culture of accountability for policing in Baltimore, recognizing the pervasive racism, disrespect and lawlessness that gave rise to recent events; and 2) building the capacity of activists in Baltimore to demand and achieve immediate and long-term reforms.

 The sum of $650,000 is quite something for an organization claiming both that it is “grassroots” and that it represents the people being oppressed by an evil, racist society. Grassroots aren’t normally that wealthy, and evil, racist societies don’t normally fund organizations dedicated to throwing off those chains. There is clearly something else at work here and that something is an Astroturf front for racial agitation.

And, as much money as $650,000 is, it is mere drop in the bucket. The Washington Times reports that between OSF and the Center for American Progress, BLM has been the beneficiary of $33,000,000. Through grants to a variety of subversive organizations under the BLM umbrella, OSF and the Center for American Progress are funding a false narrative about racial disparity and police violence with the end-goal of “reforming” local police by federalizing them. By using the looting and rioting as “opportunities for major justice reforms,” Soros and his ilk have fanned the flames of an invented fire for their own purposes.

As bad as all of that would be on its own, even that $33,000,000 is — yet and still — just a drop in the bucket. The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy have recently formed the Black-Led Movement Fund with a six-year commitment to a pooled donor campaign to the tune of $100,000,000. Race-hustling, it would appear, is a booming industry. After all, you can’t make omelets without breaking a few eggs and you can’t reconstruct a society until you first tear it down. And there is no tool better at tearing down a society that the proven method of divide-and-conquer. $133,000,000 will pay for a lot of #BLM #FTP t-shirts.

So, under the banner and hashtag of “Black Lives Matter” sits a bulging and growing money bag. What is BLM doing with its ill-gotten gains? Have these “leaders” of black America started career training centers in the most impoverished and disenfranchised neighborhoods? No, they have simply demanded higher minimum wages. Rather than help the poor, black residents of the nation’s poor, black neighborhoods learn more valuable job skills, BLM simply demands that entry-level McJobs pay more than the jobs are worth. Have these “leaders” of black America started drug rehabilitation programs to help the poor overcome addictions? No, they have instead demanded that the legalization of drugs which addle the minds of the poor, black Americans in the inner-cities of America. Have these “leaders” of black America launched programs to address the cycle of poverty which necessarily accompanies high illegitimate birth-rates and fatherless homes? No, instead they have demanded that the “sex work” industry (a not-so-veiled reference to prostitution) be legalized. If black lives mattered to these “leaders” in the BLM “movement,” they would seek ways to make black lives better. Instead they use black lives as cannon fodder in their war on police — which is part of a larger war on society.

Take for instance just one of the many subversive organizations which will receive that $100,000,000 from The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy. The Movement for Black Lives (MBL) advocates for all of the above-mentioned ideas and more. MBL demands reparations including free college and a minimum wage with no requirements for the one receiving the “wage” to perform any work in order to receive it. (Of course, “minimum wage” is not the correct term since the very definition of “wage” is payment received for work performed.) It’s enough to make one wonder what the free college education is for if people will get money for nothing. MBL also demands the legalization (they prefer the term “decriminalization”) of drugs and prostitution. Their demand goes so far as to make such policy retroactive and to include — say it with me — reparations. And, with a wink and a nod to Marx and Engels, MBL demands “economic justice” to include “collective ownership, not merely access.”

The communist-on-its-face nature of these and other demands of the organizations under the BLM umbrella are a clear indicator of the real intent of BLM. The deep-pocketed funding by the likes of Soros, the Center for American Progress, the Ford Foundation, and Borealis Philanthropy show that BLM is the means, not the end. BLM is little more than a tool of social revolutionaries hell-bent on destroying America so they can build their long awaited dystopia which they attempt to pass off as a utopia.

The Russian President leveled his most fierce blow yet against interventionist foreign policies arguing that productive societal change must begin at the ground level from within rather than being imparted by outside liberators.
President Putin opined in an interview with Bloomberg at the Eastern Economic Forum that events from the last decade and a half show that the budding Western foreign policy theory of humanitarian interventionism, wars of liberation and outside efforts to bolster opposition to autocratic conditions result in fertile breeding grounds for terrorists and destabilize nation-states – with Iraq, Libya and Syria being the most prominent and graphic examples.
“I’ve always been of the opinion that you can’t change things from the outside, regarding political regimes, power change,” Putin explained. “I’m sure – and the events of the past decade add to this certainty – in particular the attempts at democratization in Iraq, Libya, we see what they led to: the destruction of state systems and the rise of terrorism.”
The Russian President himself has faced challenges from Western foreign policy thinkers who claim to espouse a theory of outside intervention to facilitate a culture of increased democratization – such as Open Society Foundations’ George Soros who had invested heavily in opposition media and entities inside of Russia which many in Moscow see as a thinly veiled effort to destabilize the government.
A similar cascade befell the regime of Viktor Yanukovych, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, whose regime was ousted by the same “fifth column” forces of disruption that the leaks of George Soros files showed that the Hungarian-born billionaire advocated for and ultimately funded the creation of.
 “Do you see any elements of democracy in Libya? Perhaps they will develop one day, hopefully. Or the ongoing civil war in Iraq – what is the future of Iraq in General? These remain big questions,” said Putin in laying out his case. “The same goes for Syria. Every time we hear that ‘Assad must go’ (because someone from outside believes so), I can’t help but wonder: What is that going to lead to?… Isn’t it better to warm ourselves with patience and promote structural changes in society?”
The idea comes full-force with the regime change efforts in Iraq and Libya with former President George W. Bush calling the military campaign an effort to “liberate the Iraqi people” from the despotism of the violent dictator Saddam Hussein. A similar motive animated the Obama administration’s push, an effort spearheaded by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to force regime change in Libya so that pro-democratic forces could lead the country – instead it is a failed state controlled by Daesh (ISIS).
Speaking about democracy from the depths of despotism, Putin argued that “this won’t happen today or tomorrow, but perhaps therein lies the political wisdom: holding horses and not leaping ahead, but gradually pursuing structural changes, in this case, in the political system of society.”
The Russian President’s argument makes sense even under Western political theology which is based on the notion of the rule of law and freedom of speech with a major precondition of being trust in institutions that are left stable enough to adapt to the needs and demands of the people.

In yet another instance of what has become an all-too-common attempt to blame a Russian boogeyman for political failings in the United States, the Washington Post has published a dire op-ed warning of an ‘October surprise’ from the Kremlin.
When WikiLeaks released internal emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) earlier this year, the US media’s first response was to blame the leak on Russian hackers — instead of focusing on the content of the documents, which revealed that the DNC actively worked to ensure that former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was victorious over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
There is no evidence to show that the Russian government was involved in any way, but of course, when a hack occurs in the United States, officials are quick to blame Moscow. These false accusations are then parroted by the media, even when senior US intelligence officials and cybersecurity experts dispute the claims.
“We don’t know enough to ascribe motivation, regardless of who it might have been,” US National Intelligence Director James Clapper cautioned last month.
On Monday, Dana Milbank published an op-ed with the Washington Post, entitled “A Putin-sponsored October surprise?” The piece suggests that the Kremlin could release doctored intelligence in an effort to smear Clinton, ahead of the presidential election in November.
“Perhaps they’ll show that the Clinton Foundation has been funding the Islamic State, or they’ll have Hillary Clinton admitting that she didn’t care about those Americans who died in Benghazi after all,” the op-ed reads.
  “Maybe they’ll show that she really did lose most of her brain function in that fall several years ago and is now relying on Anthony Weiner to make all of her decisions.
” The article provides no evidence to back its accusations, and appears to rest solely on a Foreign Policy article that claims hackers leaked altered documents in an effort to besmirch George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. This article, too, provides zero evidence that the Russian government was behind the hack.
Milbank also cites questionable FBI claims that a Russian hacking group recently infiltrated voter databases in two US states. But this interpretation is also up for grabs, given the fact that the information contained in those databases is largely available to the public online. This information includes voter names, phone numbers, addresses, and party affiliations — information that is generally less useful than a phone book to any state actor.
 “Even if you assume that Putin’s intelligence services were responsible, and their motive was for Donald Trump to win, why pick the State of Arizona?” Jeffrey Carr wrote for Medium. “They’ve voted for a Republican for President in every Presidential election since 1952 except for 1996.
” Still, the true motive behind Milbank’s piece seems overtly clear:
“In an apparent effort to boost Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, they’re leaking what they believe to be the most damaging documents at strategic points in the campaign,” he writes.
In this election cycle, the Russian government has become a useful scapegoat for mainstream media outlets in backing their preferred candidate: Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Wired, and dozens of other outlets have pushed the Russian hacking narrative. Several of these outlets, including the Post and Times, have openly endorsed Clinton.
 On Sunday, the New York Times printed a story entitled “A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories,” which accused RT and Sputnik of being part of a Kremlin disinformation campaign. While the piece begins by focusing on Sweden’s possible NATO involvement, it shifts inexplicably to the US election.
“[RT’s] coverage of the Democratic National Convention, for example, skipped the speeches and focused instead on scattered demonstrations,” the article reads. “It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media.
” Even a cursory look at either RT or Sputnik, however, reveals a highly balanced coverage of the Republican presidential dark-horse candidate, including those that cast him in a negative light.
Earlier this month, Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia and current Clinton surrogate, wrote an op-ed for the Post that boldly claimed “Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to see Donald Trump become the next president of the United States.” The accusations in McFaul’s piece have been debunked at length.
Instead of accusing Moscow of attempting to influence an American election, maybe the US media should look in the mirror.