(2005) Soros Shadow Party Stalks DeLay

On the day that Terri Schiavo died — victim of a court order condemning the brain-damaged woman to death by thirst and starvation — Representative Tom DeLay of Texas did what few politicians have the courage to do these days. He spoke his mind.

"This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most," DeLay told Fox News on March 31. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

DeLay’s strong language worried some Republicans. They pointed to an ABC News poll of March 21 purporting to show that 63 percent of Americans wanted Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube removed and that 70 percent wanted Congress to stay out of the matter.

On the day of Mrs. Schiavo’s death, DeLay told reporters that Congressional investigators, "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President." He suggested that some judges involved in the Schiavo case might face impeachment. "I never thought I’d see the day when a U.S. judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took fourteen days to die," he said.

Fainter hearts in the Republican Party cringed. Yet the very next day, on April 1, pollster John Zogby released survey results showing that 79 percent of Americans opposed removing a feeding tube from someone in Terri Schiavo’s condition. Only 9 percent would remove it.

It turned out that ABC had used a push poll — a survey worded in such a way as to ensure a predetermined outcome. The ABC poll had misled respondents into thinking that Mrs. Schiavo had "no consciousness" and that her condition was "irreversible."

In the end, neither poll mattered to DeLay. He had spoken his mind boldly, as was his habit. Americans in the heartland took note. Calls of gratitude swamped radio talk shows, such as Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s.

DeLay had given voice to tens of millions of ordinary, hard-working Americans whose opinions seldom reach mass media organizations nor the elite pollsters they employ. He spoke for an anguished but silent majority which recoiled in horror from Terri Schiavo’s killing, and from the runaway judicial system which had ordered it.

DeLay had given middle Americans more than just a voice. He had given them hope. From the Democrat point of view, that made DeLay a very dangerous man.

Through the Schiavo case, grassroots America discovered why DeLay’s Congressional foes call him, "The Hammer."

At age 58, DeLay stands unrivaled as the most powerful and effective Republican leader in Congress. Virtually every Republican legislative breakthrough of the last decade, from the Contract with America to welfare reform and the Balanced Budget Act owes its passage in large part to DeLay’s skill at persuasion.

His public profile is rising fast. Between September 1999 and February 2005, the proportion of Americans who recognize DeLay’s name soared from 46 to 76 percent, according to a Gallup survey commissioned by CNN and USA Today.

Predictably, his rising stature has made him a priority target for dirty tricksters of the left. His ascent to House Majority Leader in January 2003 triggered an onslaught of non-stop mud-slinging. DeLay has endured a two-year barrage of nebulous, petty and mostly ill-founded ethics charges, attack ads, media smear campaigns and dubious popularity polls.

So far, he has weathered the storm. But his accusers persist. In the last three weeks, their attacks have reached a furious crescendo, with calls for DeLay’s resignation screaming from blog sites, editorial pages and television screens across the land.

Mainstream media portray DeLay’s accusers as disinterested "public interest groups" — non-profit organizations standing guard over public virtue, their judgment unsullied by corruption or party allegiance. In reality, of course, the "public interest groups" attacking DeLay have roots in the partisan struggle as deep as any in Washington.

Much evidence suggests that a hidden agenda lurks beneath the camouflage of this sudden outpouring of "ethics" charges. In certain cases, the organizations promoting these charges evince a history and money trail bespeaking a highly specific allegiance.

If we have interpreted the evidence rightly, it would appear that DeLay may be confronting a political machine far wealthier, more ruthless and better skilled at media manipulation than the Democratic Party itself. When the hysteria subsides and the facts are examined, we may learn that DeLay’s foe all along has been the Shadow Party — a murky and inscrutable entity controlled by leftwing billionaire George Soros.

"Tom DeLay: He’d like to wash his hands of corruption. …," a voice intones, while a man wearing cuff links and a Rolex watch scrubs his hands. "He can’t wash his hands of corruption. But Congress can certainly wash its hands of Tom DeLay."

This 30-second television ad began running in selected Congressional districts on Thursday, March 31 — only the latest in a long series of media smears targeting DeLay.

"Over a five-day span, ending last Thursday, TV and radio stations and print publications from around the country featured at least 290 stories" discussing ethics allegations against DeLay, reports Alexander Bolton in the March 23 edition of The Hill.

The allegations mostly involve aggressive fundraising tactics of the sort the Clintons honed to a science. To what extent DeLay may be guilty of such missteps remains unclear. Crystal clear is the double standard being applied to his case.

A small but dedicated core of self-appointed ethics "watchdog" groups have labored to keep the charges against DeLay brightly aflame – among them, the Center for Public Integrity; Common Cause; Democracy 21; Public Campaign and Public Citizen.

Often dubbed "non-partisan" by the press, these groups have a long history of coordination with Soros and his Shadow Party. They are beholden to Soros personally for his financial support. His influence often shows itself in their choice of targets.

For instance, the TV ad campaign cited above is sponsored by two groups, both heavily funded by Soros. One, the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), has received more than $300,000 from Soros' Open Society Institute. The other group, the Public Campaign Action Fund, is a spin-off from the Soros-funded Public Campaign.

In fact, most of the public-interest "watchdogs" currently hounding DeLay are beneficiaries of Soros largesse. Every one of the groups named above have received large contributions from Soros’ Open Society Institute ranging from $275,000 to nearly $2 million.

George Soros is one of the most powerful men in the world. His foundations disburse as much as $400 million per year. As a global investor, Soros has amassed a personal fortune estimated at $7.5 billion. He controls an additional $11 billion or so through his investment funds. Soros is one of a handful of mega-investors who can move global markets simply by expressing an opinion on CNN’s Moneyline.

Despite his power, most Americans never heard of Soros until November 11, 2003, when he declared in a Washington Post interview that, "America under Bush is a danger to the world." Ousting Bush, said Soros, "is the central focus of my life… a matter of life and death." Asked if he would spend his last penny to defeat Bush, Soros replied, "If someone guaranteed it."

In the end, Soros did not spend anything close to his last penny on the campaign. But he didn’t need to. Soros achieved something far more important than merely putting John Kerry in the White House. He gained control of the Democratic Party itself.

Soros’ power grab was ten years in the making. Beginning in 1994, he began pouring millions into the campaign finance reform lobby. The result was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted on December 30, 2003: "Combine… the $1.7 million that Mr. Soros gave the Center for Public Integrity, the $1.3 million he gave Public Campaign, the $300,000 to Democracy 21, the $625,000 to Common Cause, and the $275,000 to Public Citizen – and you can be forgiven for believing Mr. Soros got campaign finance passed all by himself."

Note that all five of the organizations listed above are now attacking Tom DeLay.

What did the McCain-Feingold Act do for George Soros? Why did he spend seven years and millions of dollars pursuing it? It now appears to have been a power play, whose purpose was to gain control of the Democratic Party.

The McCain-Feingold Act barred political parties from collecting "soft money" — that is, donations which are earmarked for no particular candidate, and which are therefore exempt from federal limits on their size. Under McCain-Feingold, the parties could only accept heavily regulated "hard money" donations limited to $2,000 per donor, per candidate.

This rule put the Democratic Party in peril. Republicans had long enjoyed a three-to-one advantage over Democrats in raising hard money. Consequently, Democrats depended for their survival on huge donations from unions, corporations and wealthy individuals — that is, they depended on soft money.

Now Soros had cut off the Democrats’ soft-money supply. The Party seemed doomed. But Soros showed them a way out. He offered Democrats an alternate money source — one which he personally controlled. That source was the Shadow Party.

Journalists first started using the term "shadow party" in 2003 to describe the network of leftwing NGOs, activist Web sites, Section 527 "stealth PACs," public employee unions and radical foundations which Democrat activists used to circumvent McCain-Feingold in the 2004 campaign. Working independently of the Democratic Party, these private groups managed to raise a record $300 million in political contributions for Democrats running in 2004.

The Shadow Party has gotten a fair amount of press. However, most reporters failed to describe it accurately. They characterized the Shadow Party as a loose network of private groups that arose more or less spontaneously from grassroots America. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The Shadow Party is a top-down creation. George Soros founded it, organized it and runs it to this day, through a tightly-integrated, corporate-style command structure. Soros fulfills a role in the Shadow Party comparable to that of chairman of the board, while former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes serves as de facto CEO.

It took years of patient sleuthing to penetrate the Shadow Party’s secrets — a research effort led by conservative activist David Horowitz, who heads the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) in Los Angeles. Much of this research can now be found at DiscovertheNetwork.org — a searchable, online database of the organized left which Horowitz launched in February 2005.

DiscovertheNetwork.org illuminates the intricate personal and financial relationships binding leftwing organizations together. While compiling this database, Horowitz and his team uncovered the hidden command structure that drives Soros’ Shadow Party.

Through these Seven Sisters, Soros and his team convey money, information and marching orders down the line to a much larger network encompassing radical public employee unions, leftwing foundations and street-level activist groups.

The network has emerged as a veritable shadow government, wielding the power to make or break politicians at the highest level. The sudden convergence of Soros-sponsored "public interest" groups in the attack on DeLay smacks of coordination. It suggests that Soros has focused the full might of his Shadow Party on an effort to discredit Tom DeLay and force his resignation as House Majority Leader.

With DeLay neutralized, Democrats will be free to pursue another priority goal of George Soros — to spend the next three years packing our federal courts with leftwing extremists, right up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They will fill the benches with corrupt, radical judges cut from the same cloth as those who sent Terri Schiavo to her grave.

In the 2004 election cycle, Soros donated about $27 million of his personal funds to anti-Bush forces — the largest political contribution from a single individual in U.S. history. More importantly, the Shadow Party Soros created raised more than $300 million for the cause.

John Kerry may have lost the election, but the Shadow Party emerged triumphant. The Democrats can no longer function without Shadow Party cash.

Regarding the Democratic Party, MoveOn PAC director and Soros operative Eli Pariser boasted, "Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it."

The Shadow Party’s ascendancy marks a victory for the left — and in particular for Soros’ idiosyncratic vision of social utopia. Soros’ philanthropy has long promoted a phantasmagoria of radical causes such as medical rationing, euthanasia, gay rights, gun control, avant-garde education, regulation of political speech through campaign finance laws and the promotion of judicial activism. In his 1998 book The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Soros foretold the end of free enterprise.

His Shadow Party has emerged today as the ultimate instrument for inflicting his radical agenda on America.

In the November 29, 2004 issue of the Marxist journal The Nation, Robert L. Borosage co-wrote an article with Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel. They wrote: "[P]rogressives drive this party now - we provide the energy, the organizers, the ground forces, the ideas, and much of the money. We should organize the opposition [against Republicans]. Progressives should mount a powerful assault on Republican boss Tom DeLay."

Borosage typifies the sort of people who fill high-level leadership positions in the Shadow Party. A hard-left militant during the '60s and a graduate of Yale Law School — where he served as a political mentor to young Hillary Rodham - Borosage subsequently headed the National Lawyers Guild, a radical organization that began in the 1930s as a Soviet front, operated in conjunction with the Communist Party and to this day basks comfortably in its Communist heritage. Later Borosage headed the Institute for Policy Studies, a far left Washington think tank that has enjoyed close and unsavory involvements with Soviet and Cuban intelligence operations.

In a July 25, 2004 article, Shadow Party operative Simon Rosenberg — who is president of the New Democrat Network — told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine that the independent 527 committees which form the backbone of Soros’ Shadow Party would spearhead a "more defiant kind of politics." As Bai put it, these independent groups could go where no Democrat could go before. They could confront head-on the "sharp ideological divide between them and the Rush Limbaugh right." They would be free to attack ideological foes with a Machiavellian abandon previously unknown in mainstream politics — ideological foes such as Tom DeLay.

Of course, DeLay is not the sort of man who would suffer such attacks without a fight. On April 7, as a rising chorus of journalists, pollsters, leftwing activists and "public interest groups" screamed for his resignation as House Majority Leader, DeLay went on the offensive.

Speaking by video to the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration — a conservative religious group — DeLay warned sternly of "a judiciary run amok."

"The judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people…," he said. "Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric."

And so it will be. Americans today are aboil with rage that no push poll can hide. DeLay may stand or fall before his attackers. No one can predict his fate. But with or without DeLay, that "next step" of which he spoke will come, and the people will be heard.

Richard Poe is a writer for the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, as well as managing editor of David Horowitz's group blog Moonbat Central. He is a New York Times-bestselling author and journalist whose blog appears at RichardPoe.com. Poe's latest book is Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists.

During the Nazi occupation, with German and Hungarian fascists rounding up some 300 000 Jews, young Soros posed as the Christian godson of an Hungarian official responsible for expropriating Jewish property. The 14-year old George sometimes accompanied his supposed godfather, helping to identify and expropriate the property of wealthy fellow Jews. So far from being a "Holocaust Survivor," George Soros was instead a Nazi collaborator.

In a TV interview, 15.4.93, Soros made the startling admission: "I actually went with him, and we took decisions on these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange, very strange, life." To this day, Soros recalls those as "the happiest years of my life."

After the Nazis came the communists. In 1947 Soros skedaddled to London to escape retribution by survivors. He enrolled at the London School of Economics, where he met his second mentor, the libertarian philosopher, Karl Popper, the Viennese émigré who taught philosophy at the LSE after the war and who coined the phrase "open society."

http://www.answers.com/topic/george-soros
http://www.sorostrading.com/art_obrien.html

Soros was fourteen when the Germans took military control over their ally Hungary in the last part of the war, and he avoided the fate of many Jews as the grandson of a Hungarian official overseeing the confiscation of Jewish properties, who was assisted by his son-in-law, Tivadar Soros.

In rare Jewish appearance, George Soros says Jews and Israel cause anti-Semitism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1241185/posts

George Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 but, today,
spends most of his time in New York City. Not much is
known about his early years. He is the only
eminent "holocaust survivor" who has been accused of
collaboration with the Nazis. In 1947, he managed to sneak
through the Iron Curtain, and, the official story
goes, "he landed penniless in London, but by hard work and
sheer genius, he rose to become one of the planet's most
successful investors and richest men."

___________________________________________________________

( Credit to Jan Malina for posting this )
Thanks Jan!
Thanks Richard!

Mr. Petr Cibulka and Ms. Jani Allan contributed

to this report.

As the Western naiveté has no limits nor brakes to prevent some serious explosions, certain communist intelligence services are able to penetrate the West and conduct special subversion operations that in time bring the West to a destruction. When such operations remain un-noticed and therefore are not dealt with accordingly by the western counter-espionage services, the communist cause gets its advancement much easier. The people who'll suffer, because of this slow and systematical western defeat, are you and me, the ordinary taxpayer who still believes that U.S. Government is not infiltrated by communists and by the liberal useful idiots and who still believe that Russia is our strategic partner. Today we will present one of several cases when the western flawed "logic" lacks the proper logic when dealing with such imminent communist operations - threats to our very survival as a free society.

The case of George Soros

Early life

George Soros was born in Hungary on August 12, 1930. According to his biography Soros was taught Esperanto language by his father who was a lawyer and doctor. It is important to notice that according to some sources (1)
Tivandar Soros [alias Teodoro Schwartz alias Teo Melas (search)](2) was a POW in Bolshevik Gulag in Siberia after the 1917 October Revolution as he probably somewhat participated in the opposition, but the sources are unclear about that. [Of course this would open a possibility to recruit such people - and cases have been known......]

George Soros as a young man traded currencies on the black market during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. Soros lived there until 1946 when he left the country as it was under the Soviet occupation and he, without money and at age of 16, ended up in London, U.K. in 1947. According to claims Soros has made, he left his native Hungary because of the Soviet occupation.

Well, well, well .......

Simply said this must be explained to the American public because these facts are not possible to be true under any normal circumstances. Soros admits to trade currencies on black market but that was always punishable by death during the Nazi era in any occupied country. Also what is important is the allegation (3) that Soros family collaborated with the Hungarian Nazi regime during the WW2.

That would make the whole family [no doubt] a target of reprisals from the victims of the Nazi regime and the occupying Soviet forces would treat Soros's family very harshly [most of the high level Nazi collaborators were hanged]. The only way out of this would be an agreement to co-operate with the GRU Soviet [Russian] military intelligence or perhaps also with the NKVD [later KGB] espionage.

Young George was able to leave the country, he was able to make it through countless Red Army check points, without a passport that would be valid, without a Soviet approved permit to leave the country, without money and without any outside help.

Soros was not only able to "pass through" these check points but he was able to cross the border to Austria, where the Red Army was also present at the time, and Soros was able to get through the Red Army check points in Austria and "defect" to the West all the way to London, U.K. Un-parallel achievement and because of my personal experiences as a political refugee who had to go through some difficulties escaping the communist oppression, I know what I'm talking about.

I don't know how this Soros's "life story" sounds to anybody but this is impossible to happen unless George had a permit and proper Soviet approved passport because if he was so brave to try to run these check points he would've been shot dead on a spot by the communists.

His stay in the U.K. and his 1947 enrolment to London School of Economics, and to be able financially support himself during that time, with no mentioned help or financial backing, and to be able to graduate in 1952 at that young age, this all gives me chills where I missed my own opportunities and how come I wasn't able to be so "fortunate" and to have such "miraculous achievements" in my life.

Soros, after a brief period of working in financial services in U.K., was able to start his own financial institution. What an achievement again. No money at all from the beginning and after just a few years he's got his own financial company. That requires starting capital, these ventures don't come easy, these are not hamburger stands but virtual banks with lot of money inside - who supplied the money to Soros or has he won a huge jackpot in Britain ?

Please keep reading, it only gets thicker and better.

Soros and the Perestroika fraud

In the previous Weekly Opinion (4) I was able to present facts about the one Frantisek Janouch, a communist and also a financial backer of the leading "anti-communist dissidents" in Czechoslovakia who were able [by some un-known miracle] to set up an anti-communist [pretended] group called Charter 77. Well, George Soros was the main financial contributor to Charter 77 and also to the Polish Labor Union called Solidarity.

In case of Charter 77 Janouch claims that Soros supplied 1/3 of the total amount of money this Charter 77 Foundation in Stockholm was sending to the communist Czechoslovakia, to Havel and company.

According to my sources the sum of money that was coming to Czechoslovakia, from the Charter 77 Foundation, was gradually rising since the 1978-79 period.

From the first 107,594 Swedish Crowns in 1978 it was over half a million in 1989. [I don't have the dollar exchange rate from that time but to illustrate how much money it was in the communist Czechoslovakia these amounts were astronomical - let's say that the CZ Crown was about 0.20 Swedish Crown so it would be about 538 Thousand Czechoslovak Crowns the first year and over 2.5 million CZ Crowns in 1989 - for the people in the leadership of Charter 77 that was a lot of money].

Their secret local support is of course still secret the same way as the STB communist police dossiers of the leading members of the Charter 77 [Havel and company].

We also have to analyze the money flow and where they were coming from. Since Janouch claims that Soros was the biggest contributor to Charter 77 [and according to some sources Soros supplied all together $7 million to Charter 77 and Solidarity in Poland], but Janouch also stated that Soros only supplied one third of the total amount.

Where were the remaining money coming from ?

According to my phone conversation with the wife of former political prisoner and later, as a sort of token for the communists in 1990 [for 4 months] Deputy Czech Interior Minister, Mr. Miroslav Dolejsi (5) [his analysis is worth reading](6) , Mr. Dolejsi received some secret documents from Sweden that supposedly corroborated that Janouch's Charter 77 Foundation was a GRU-KGB operation.

It is no secret that Mr. Dolejsi was attacked and beaten by some thugs who possibly worked for the CZ secret services and Mr. Dolejsi's house was burglarized and these documents were stolen.

There are other people who also allege that the money were coming directly from Moscow. Well, since Janouch was a communist and possible GRU agent, this is no surprise at all.

The question is: Did Soros know this ?

When George Soros showed up in Prague in 1997 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Charter 77, he was all for Perestroika and he was praising the false dissident and alleged GRU agent Havel and his friends as the "saviors of democracy" in Czechoslovakia.

It was Soros in his own work who stated that he was present at the meeting in Prague on December 14, 1989 [a month after the "collapse of communism" in CZ and with communists still running the government] where Soros, Janouch, Karel Jan Schwartzenberg [then Chairman of the International Helsinki Human Rights Commission and later Vaclav Havel's Chief of Staff] met with Czechoslovak newly appointed Prime Minister, a communist and allegedly KGB and STB agent Marian Calfa [who was till then the deputy PM during the openly communist era and remained as CZ Prime Minister under the appointed president Havel till 1992 !!!] and Calfa thanked Soros for everything he's done for the country.

A communist thug thanks an American 'capitalist' for helping to collapse the communist regime ?

Another detail about this fraud involves in 1984 uncovered KGB agent inside the CIA Karel Koecher, (7) who, after his deportation from the United States and swift return to the communist Czechoslovakia, started working for the Prognosis Department of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences [Koecher was working there with the today's Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus - allegedly his real last name is Russian - Pruzhinskiy, and with the boss of this in fact STB communist espionage directorate Walter Komarek - a personal friend of Ernesto Che Guevara, and with others from the today Czech Republic's government], and after the so called collapse of communism KGB agent Koecher became Deputy Advisor to president Havel. When this scandal was uncovered, Havel's people promptly covered it up.

I am simply stunned how these kind of details are not understood by the West as what they are - a communist deception organized and prepared 30 plus years in advance by Moscow.

In case of Poland, we know that Solidarity was an Union and as such its leadership had to be members of the Communist Party ONLY [or communist agents]. Soros was allegedly helping the CIA to secretly finance the Solidarity, when the secret pact between the Pope John Paul II and unsuspecting [deceived] Ronald Reagan was established, and the later uncovered Polish communist agent Lech Walesa [code name BOLEK] and his "independent" Union were able to receive Soros's money and help, through channels communists would normally shut down in matter of hours. Wow !

In his work (8) Soros recollects about his 1989 Prague meeting with Calfa and says the following:

Together with Prince Karel Schwartzenberg [GRU used many times his Schwartzenberg Palace in Vienna, Austria for secured meetings - according to work of GRU defector Viktor Suvorov - HM note] we went to see Marian Calfa, who was then acting president. It was meant to be a courtesy visit but it turned into a moving occasion. Calfa opened his heart. He said that the last three weeks had really shaken his view of the world. He had not realized how far out of touch his party was with reality. He had had an intimate conversation with Jiri Dienstbier, the former political prisoner and newly-appointed Foreign Minister, and that is when he found out that dissidents' children had been regularly denied the right to be educated in Czechoslovakia. (Dienstbier's daughter had managed to get to Switzerland.) He was deeply ashamed and determined to establish democracy in Czechoslovakia. We all agreed that it was imperative to have Vaclav Havel elected president by the present rubber-stamp parliament; to organize a plebiscite would delay matters and create uncertainties. Havel as president would consolidate the "gentle revolution." Unfortunately, the leaders of the party do not agree with me but, as acting president, I have certain prerogatives and I intend to use them,' he said. He sounded genuine and we were impressed. It was an unbelievable situation: the head of an apparatus of repression which only a few weeks ago hit students on the head voluntarily abdicating in favor of a dissident without an organization who would have trouble winning a plebiscite.

There are several lies in this statement. Calfa was never a president but a Prime Minister, he changed positions after he was for some years the Deputy PM in the communist Czechoslovakia.

The statement of Soros about Dienstbier is as incorrect as ever. Here are the facts about Dienstbier:

Jiri Dienstbier - during the 1950's and 1960's journalist, alleged KGB or directly GRU cadre, as communist journalist he was able to travel around the World during the communist era in Czechoslovakia. Between 1958-69 he worked as foreign political commentator and editor for Czechoslovak [communist] Radio, between 1964-67 Dienstbier was the CZ Radio correspondent for the Far East and was in Jakarta, Indonesia at the time when there was [thank God unsuccessful] a communist coup. In 1968-69 he worked as foreign correspondent in the United States, possibly for communist party newspaper Red Right [Rude Pravo]. A CPCZ member since 1958 till 1970. Dienstbier is a founding member of Charter 77, a speaker of Charter 77 in 1979 and later in 1985. After the "collapse of communism" in Czechoslovakia, he became Czechoslovak Government's Deputy Prime Minister in a government of PM Marian Calfa and Dienstbier later became CZ Foreign Minister. While in his post as Foreign Minister, Dienstbier was involved in various scandals regarding appointing various "former" communists and STB agents [STB foreign espionage section mostly] as Czechoslovak Ambassadors around the World. [report (9)]

So who are you trying to fool George ?

When it comes to simple logic, how come Soros was allowed to set up his Open Society Institutions in the communist Hungary in 1984 and later in the Soviet Union in 1987 ? Such ventures were only possible for communists or communist agents and NOT for an American businessman like Soros.

So who are YOU, George ?

Details

We have to again turn to Soros's own words

from his work: (10)

When I went to Hungary to negotiate, I had a secret weapon at my disposal: the recipients of Open Society scholarships were ready and eager to help. On the government side, my negotiating partner was Ferenc Barta, who was concerned with foreign economic relations and looked on me as an expatriate businessman whom he was anxious to accommodate. He introduced me to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and we concluded an agreement between the academy and the newly established Soros Foundation in New York (Open Society Fund was considered too controversial a name). We established a joint committee with an official of the academy and myself as co-chairmen. The rest of the members were independent-minded Hungarian intellectuals, approved by both parties. Both parties had the right of veto over the decisions of the committee. There was also to be an independent secretariat operating under the aegis of the academy.

Here we go again. Every communist Academy of Sciences was in reality a communist technology and science espionage directorate. These people were part of the systematic communist espionage and subversion operations oriented against the free World.

Soros had to know this. To make concessions to communists is also of interest to show, what kind of "real character" George Soros really is.

And to make it even more obvious we can ask the "true philanthropist" George this following question: Are you happy you were helping the communists to set up such institutions ?

The agreement between Soros and the communist government in Hungary had to be approved by the Communist Party General Secretary Janosz Kadar. Kadar was during the 1950s personally involved in torture and murders of anti-communist opposition members in Hungary, he is a Stalinist of the worst kind and Soros had to know real well who Kadar is. As an American citizen Soros did a great disservice to his country by supporting these communist criminals.

And let's see another example from the same

Soros's work: (11)

Then came the stock-market crash of October 1987 and a reporter from the Hungarian radio interviewed me by telephone and asked me whether I was closing the foundation because I had lost my fortune. I explained to him the reasons why I refused to go to Hungary. It was a misunderstanding, I said, which was sure to be cleared up soon. The interview was broadcast and the authorities were embarrassed. I gained my points and paid a visit to Hungary; but, while I was meeting with the Prime Minister, the head of the propaganda department, Mr. Berec, personally imposed a ban on any interviews with me. The ban was broken within the week when Moscow TV reported my visit to President Gromyko in the Kremlin and, according to communist etiquette, Hungarian TV replayed it in Budapest. I was amused.

Amazing, simply amazing !

Well, this is not all, keep your hats on because the bombshell comes now. Soros tried and was able to set up his Open Society Foundation in the communist China in 1986. Read the following carefully.

I went to China [in 1986 - HM note] with Liang Heng, who became my personal representative, and set up a foundation on the Hungarian model with Chen Yizi's institute as my partner. Boo Tung, Communist party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang's principal secretary, cut through the red tape and approved the foundation on the spot.
Both he and the foundation got into a lot of trouble as a consequence because his political enemies tried to use the foundation as a vehicle for attacking him. They prepared an elaborate dossier which claimed that I was a CIA agent and anti-Communist conspirator. Boo Tung counter-attacked and presented voluminous information about my other foundations to prove my good faith. That was not too difficult because I had always been very open about my intentions and by 1987 I had also established a foundation in Moscow. Gromyko himself had put the seal of approval on it by officially receiving me in the Kremlin. Nevertheless, some high party council decided to liquidate the foundation and refund the money. It took the personal intervention of Zhao Ziyang to rescind the decision. He arranged for Chen Yizi to resign as cochairman and for the International Cultural Exchange Center, whose chairman turned out to be a high official in the security service, to take over as our host organization.

Again, if you don't know how the communist criminal machine functions, you will take these deceptive statements from Soros as genuine truth.

Point 1) How exactly, George, can you prove, as an American citizen and therefore enemy of the communists, who was in fact able to set up such institute in China, how exactly you prove to the communist "justice" that you are NOT a CIA spy and anti-communist ? If they want to kill you, they will kill you.

Point 2) How is it possible, George, that the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party fixed the problem for you - this wouldn't happen unless (UNLESS) Soros is a communist agent himself.

Point 3) To know about Chinese secret police involvement in an American Institute and to continue with such venture anyway is again the proof of the worst taste and probably a proof of being somebody else Soros is claiming to be.....

Point 4) Communists from China refunded the money to an American - Soros ? Are you kidding me ? Communists returning the money to a capitalist accused of being a CIA spy ? He would be lucky to get out of there alive if this was true about him.

Point 5) Since Soros was helping financially to collapse the communism in Eastern Europe, how is it possible that he is still alive ? How is it possible that the for example Russian GRU or Czechoslovak communist military espionage services didn't send a commando unit to murder Soros for destroying their communist rule, if we accept the obvious nonsense, supported very actively by Soros, that communism has truly collapsed ? These communist espionage people are still there, none of their secret dossiers were ever made public [Supporting data (12)], they are conducting the same kind of operations as during the openly communist era - why then is Soros still alive and has not been dealt with by these people ? And since he was already trying to establish an "Open Society" Foundation in the communist Hungary and Soviet Union, how come he was able to do the same in the still communist China that has never pretended to stop her oppressive communist rule and the hard-line communists are still in power over there ?

Deception, subversion, Russian communist Global strategy. Nothing else.

South African connection

(From our South African Correspondent)

Apartheid has turned the full circle.
Black millionaires have moved into the wealthy Northern suburbs and are sending their children to private schools in chauffeur driven limousines while destitute whites queue for charity and live in squatter camps. Thousands are unemployed as Affirmative Discrimination programs took over the country.

Marxism provides the alluring pleasure of an explanation which is also a moral judgment. Entirely against the Western Trend, membership of the SA Communist party is growing prodigiously.

Communism, you see, endorses envy.

29 of the ANC's 38 member NEC executive committee are also members of the SACP - the South African Communist Party.
The true nature of the ANC's 'democratic revolution' is set out openly and unequivocally in The Path to Power, by Joe Slovo, the late Communist KGB agent [- of South Africa - editor's note]. This remains the official SACP policy document. It blueprints the ANC/SACP's revolutionary objectives, analyses of the nature of 'the struggle' as its name implies, maps out the political and military action necessary for the revolutionary 'masses' to effect a seizure of power in order to bring about the creation of a socialist state.

The main thrust of our present strategy remains a revolutionary seizure of power. It has become important for the SA Communist Party that the interim phase of people's power should be more clearly defined; that is, the phase after the success of the National Democratic Revolution, but before the advent of a true Marxist-Leninist state.

Mandela's increasingly strident pronouncements about what will happen 'when we take power' raise the question as to why the West continues to pander to the demands of these third world revolutionaries. Their recently launched economic policy, a lavish-worded, flimsily disguised justification for land grabbing and annexing South Africa's dwindling wealthy, plans to raise millions of Rands from the corporate sector.

Demands include cash donations (some running into seven figures) to 'office equipment. Social contracts have been discussed which include redistribution of wealth, increased government regulation and intervention, state planning, affirmation action and the development of a so-called 'mixed economy.' Failure to repay foreign loans features prominently.

The ANC's policy replicates that of the Stalinist Gosplanners of the Soviet Union in the late 1920's. It also represents a total misunderstanding of the nature and origins of economic growth.
The ANC claims that by nationalizing the banks, mines and monopoly industries, the workers will be given better wages and greater job security are a cynical tactic to win support among the illiterate and poor. The combination of sanctions and socialism means that they are unable to deliver.

While South Africa was ruled under an iron fist, foreign investors felt that their interests were safe. Now they are steering clear. The illiterate and poor are not told that overseas investors always avoid countries where the leadership embrace Marxist doctrines.

Thabo Mbeki, the current President is a Soviet-trained graduate of both the University of Patrice Lumumba.

[Editor's note - Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow was founded for the sole purpose to train various revolutionary communist elements to be able to install a communist rule in their country. Before Yuri Andropov became the Chairman of the KGB I am told this University was also involved in training of various terrorist and narco-trafficking cadres - Andropov separated these operations because of the secrecy that needed to be preserved.]

The West shows a curious myopia about the sainted Mandela and latter Mbeki's closest friends: Sinn Fein, the PLO and Fidel Castro. Mandela is on record as strongly having supported Gaddaffi's reluctance to have the Lockerbie bombers extradited. Gaddafi remains a staunch ally to South Africa, as does Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Among the ANC leadership there is much talk of democracy, human rights and the due process of law but one suspects that this has more to do with window-dressing than ideology, since the ANC's radical approach draws heavily on the concept put forward first by Marx and redefined by new left thinkers like Herbert Marcuse.

Despite robust indications that the ANC government is Communist rule by the toyi toyi macoute (toyi toyi being the ANC's preferred habit of dancing on the spot when gathered en masse, the Western pressure groups, newspapers and television networks who tell the public what opinions they should hold, have made up their minds about SA.
De Klerk has been cast as the benign liberator, Mandela is the Saint (despite the fact that Amnesty International has never recognized him as a political prisoner, and the ANC's noble cause is the establishment of a non-racial democratic New South Africa - a stirring notion to which no fair-minded Westerner could fail to respond. A combination of sentimental naiveté about Africa and its peoples of whom they know nothing - what Ortega y Gasset called 'the sovereignty of the unqualified' - and Western race taboo, is causing the Liberals once again to ignore the writing on the wall.

When Mbeki's Marxist government with its inevitable cast of corrupt, despotic politicians have squandered what they inherited from the much loathed white 'colonial oppressors' and the country is reduced to beggary and anarchy, the world will again have evidence that black domination embraces a brutality undreamed of in the days of white domination.
The Douglas Commission's report on the atrocities committed by the Communist ANC against their own people during the ANC's years of exile, is a foretaste of the future. The idea of the Quattro concentration camps, incidentally, came from non other than Pol Pot himself, after discussions with the KGB agent and ANC darling Joe Slovo.

There is overwhelming evidence that Brave New South Africa is already another black Communist gulag. Because of the morally reprehensible system of apartheid, the whites have come to believe that everything that they and their forefathers achieved was largely as a result of the exploitation of the non-white races. Hubris has caught up with them.

These days they are morally bankrupt apologists. There are individuals who provide the exception of course, but in the main, the white south African tribe no longer believes in itself. Throughout history, nations and races who lost faith in their own identity have succumbed to other nations and races. In South Africa the whites have bought the Communism, lock stock and barrel; this is why the white tribe of Africa and its culture are doomed.

Churchill said of Lenin that "Lenin alone could have led Russia into the enchanted quagmire...the Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth...."

The zeitgeist in South Africa leads one to believe that history might yet refer to De Klerk and his New South Africa in Similar terms. The man released from Robbin Island was not a jailed martyr. He was and remains a hard-line Communist whose legacy is poisoning South Africa. Appropriately enough, Mbeki continues apace with the destruction of civilization in South Africa, as his comrades Mugabe, et al, do in the north....
End of report

Analysis

George Soros has been involved in South Africa since 1979 as he claims. He poured money [where did he get them since most of the money he made came from his British Pound scheme in 1992 where Soros was allegedly helped by alleged KGB agent Marc Rich, the FBI fugitive Clinton has pardoned in 2000 ?] into South African Unions [mostly communists] and also to Cape Town University where Soros financed people who are today involved in the ANC communist government. Well, what an achievement again, George !

I can honestly say that this analysis would become longer and longer if I had to list every detail and obvious discrepancy in Soros's life and in his "philanthropic fever" but to pour total of $198 millions into South Africa and to come up with a communist government, it doesn't really serve the "Soros's purpose" but only the Russian communist World Domination strategy.

So to make it short, as we will address Soros's "Ukraine adventure" next week, this obvious scheme of Soros, the facts about him, the systematical support of exactly what [in parallel] the Moscow's communist criminal strategy is, it all makes us believe that Soros is not what he claims to be, but he is a [deleted] ......

(1)http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/Recenzoj/robinzonoj.html
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivadar_Soros
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Early_Life
(4)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371254/12142004.html
(5)http://www.anti-communistanalyst.com/Dolejsibio.html
(6)http://www.jrnyquist.com/dolejsi_analysis-1.htm
(7)http://www.columbia.edu/~js322/nyl/1999/diana/19990728g-engl.html
(8)http://www.osi.hu/oss/ch1b.html
(9)http://www.anti-communistanalyst.com/05192004.html#report
(10)http://www.osi.hu/oss/ch1.html
(11)http://www.osi.hu/oss/ch1.html
(12)http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol8/Zhukov.html
http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol8/Zhukov.html

A man shall eat well by the fruit of his mouth,

but the soul of the unfaithful feeds violence.

[Proverbs 13:2]

___________________________________________________________

George Soros, Postmodern Villain
by Srdja Trifkovic

NGO's, Behold Your God.

George Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 but, today, spends most of his time in New York City. Not much is known about his early years. He is the only eminent "holocaust survivor" who has been accused of collaboration with the Nazis. In 1947, he managed to sneak through the Iron Curtain, and, the official story goes, "he landed penniless in London, but by hard work and sheer genius, he rose to become one of the planet's most successful investors and richest men."

Mr. Soros' peculiar moral values, political views, and ideological preferences would be immaterial without the money that he can spend promoting and imposing them. The bulk of that money-currently estimated at not less than seven billion dollars-was earned in the minus-sum game of currency and stock speculation, contributing nothing to the creation of wealth and making millions of ordinary people poorer in the process. His offshore Quantum Fund-legally headquartered in Curacao, beyond U.S.-government supervision-specializes in speculative investments to take advantage of deliberately induced political and economic weaknesses of different countries and regions. In an interview with the Swiss weekly L'hebdo (May 1993), Soros outlined his strategy: "I speculate on discrepancy between the reality and the public image of this reality, until a correctional mechanism occurs, which approaches these two."

His profits are staggering. On September 16, 1992, he famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the Bank of England and the pound sterling. In July 1997, he contributed to the Southeast Asian financial crisis by shorting the Thai bath. In early 2000, he supposedly suffered losses on tech stocks, but some analysts now suggest that the burn of the NASDAQ was controlled and that Soros helped to start the fire. By last November, he was betting the U.S. dollar would plummet. As the London Independent reported (November 28, 2003), his activities were contributing to a growing belief on Wall Street that the dollar would slide even further.

There is nothing new in Soros' approach to making money or in the ability of such a person to make an impact, invariably detrimental, on his host society's morals and culture. What is new with Mr. Soros-in addition to the implausible claim that a private speculator could get as far as he has unaided by any established financial interests-is his systematic, concerted effort to use a large part of his fortune to promote his peculiar social and political views. He does so through a global network of "nongovernmental organizations" named after himself and active primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Africa, Latin America, and the United States. At age 75, money is not his object but his tool. He has used it to develop a well-coordinated global operation centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries.

Even before the Open Society network came into being, Soros' blueprint for postcommunist "shock therapy" reform had been put to the test. First came Poland, where the first postcommunist prime minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was close to Soros and subsequently remained associated with his local subsidiary, the Stefan Batory Foundation. In his book Underwriting Democracy, Soros says that he personally prepared the broad outlines of Poland's comprehensive economic reform:

I joined forces with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University, who was advocating a similar program, and sponsored his work in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation . . . The IMF approved and the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain in order to see real change.

Poland was only a start, however; far more important to his goals was his association in 1991-92 with Russia's "reformist" leaders Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar and their Harvard guru Sachs. Within a year of their "shock therapy," hyperinflation had wiped out Russians' savings and the long-suffering middle class with it. Pensioners were literally starving. The parallel "privatization" of Russia's huge resources-timber, oil, gas, chemicals, media-created the robber oligarchs and contributed to Russia's effective deindustrialization. The country was lowered into neocolonial dependence: a supplier of energy and raw materials and an importer of high technology and manufactured goods. Nevertheless, in early 1993, Soros felt that Russia had not gone far enough: "The social safety net would also provide a powerful incentive to shut down loss-making enterprises. Factories could be idled and the raw materials and energy that go into production could be sold for more than the output."

George Soros is out to deconstruct nations and states as Europe has known them for centuries, with Russia always the main prize. In an interview with the Moscow daily Komersant (August 8, 1997), he declared that "a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic." "The rescue of a free Russian economy depends on the attraction of Western investments," he added, and, to that end, "Russia's general public must accept the ideology of an open society."

By that time, a total of 29 "Soros Foundations" were active in every postcommunist country. In 1994, his foundations spent a total of $300 million; by 1998, that figure had risen to $574 million. These are enormous sums in an impoverished and vulnerable Eastern Europe.

Those foundations say that they are "dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society." What this means in practice is clear from their many fruits. Regarding "women's health" programs in Central and Southeastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast-cancer detection or prenatal or postnatal care. Soros' main goal is clear and frankly stated: "to improve the quality of abortion services." Accordingly, his Public Health Program has supported the introduction of medical abortion in Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. In addition,

OSI has also worked with international and local NGOs to respond to the growing strength of the antiabortion movement. Through its influence on ministries of health and hospital administrators, that movement has made strides in reducing access to abortion . . . OSI will continue to support training in quality of care and efforts to keep abortion legal, safe, and accessible for all women in the region.

Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortion cannot be the answer either: According to a recent U.N. report, five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000-the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Rumania, and Ukraine. Overall, the report said, abortion rates are "substantially higher in central and eastern Europe and the CIS countries than in western Europe and North America." The only logical answer is that Soros wants as few Russians and others born into this world as possible.

Soros' public-health programs also "support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities" and promote "harm reduction": "Its primary goal is to empower drug users to protect their health. Needle/syringe exchange and substitution therapies (e.g., methadone) are at the center of harm reduction health interventions." His "harm reducers" have expanded their work with special initiatives on "sex workers" and prisoners and launched a policy initiative that attempts to ensure that "repressive drug policies do not impede the expansion of harm reduction efforts."

Over the past five years, the Soros network has given a successful start to previously nonexistent "gay" activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for "LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Rights" is directed from Budapest, where Miriam Molnar's 1999 policy paper published by OSI defined the "problem" as discrimination and the low level of acceptance, visibility, and political representation of LGBT's. It was necessary either "to convince the society to accept LGBT people as equal and let the society make pressure [sic] to the politicians (through media) to change laws" or "to convince the politicians that LGBT people are equal and that they need help in convincing the rest of the society." The overall goals were to generate discussion about LGBT identity within the community, to make them visible and "create a positive image," and to establish regular forums of discussion with other groups in the region. Specific tasks included the development of websites in English with subsites in local languages, the establishment of task forces that would react to all "homophobic" media outbursts in one "Pink Book," and the organization of two-week summer schools for teachers that would "provide training about discrimination of [sic] LGBT people, disabled people, overweight people etc."

In November 1999, a pilot project began at the Center for Publishing Development (OSI Budapest) on homosexual books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia. That same year, Nash Mir (Our World) Gay and Lesbian Center announced that it had been registered as an NGO in the Ukraine. From that moment, the group was free to pursue its stated goals, including "fight against sexual-orientation discrimination" and "homophobic sentiments in societal consciousness" and "assistance to upbringing of gays' and lesbians' self-consciousness as equal and valuable members of society." The group expressed gratitude for its legalization to the "Ukrainian branch of Soros Foundation Network (Renaissance Foundation) which lobbied our question in the Ministry of Justice and render [sic] legal assistance to us."

Gay.ru is a Soros-funded Moscow NGO that has developed "into an established and recognized Russian gay and lesbian center" and "the clearing house for lesbian and gay groups scattered across the country":

We keep contacts with all existing gay, lesbian, and AIDS organizations in Russia and maintain on-going correspondence and reporting to international gay and lesbian organizations . . . We have collected the biggest off-line library that features over a hundred Russian titles and some fifty English classic books on gay studies. It was greatly enhanced by the Core Collection on Gay and Lesbian Issues awarded to us by the Soros Foundation in 2000.

In Bucharest, Monika Barcsy of the local Soros branch bewailed the fact that, in Rumania, "the homosexual identity is stigmatized" and is one of the main bases for treating individuals as "the others" in an attitude of intolerance. Their families became the victims of prejudice "just because the society is unable to accept the legitimacy of same-sex relations as a 'normal' manifestation." The author singles out the Rumanian Orthodox Church as a prime culprit: "The problem is that many Christian Orthodox students' organizations and other student groups support the church." In 1994, she points out, more than 100 theology students began a series of demonstrations in front of Rumania's parliament against homosexual propaganda in the media and collected signatures demanding legislation to criminalize same-sex relations. Barcsy concludes by reiterating the standard Soros line:

Gay men and lesbians need rights that guarantee them the expression of their identity in the public sphere . . . [T]he legal status of gays and lesbians, their ability to move and appear in public, to speak out and act together should be considered a very good test of the civic openness. [It] can't be resolved with the new laws made under the pressure of different human rights organizations. Romania needs . . . to ameliorate the negative responses towards the homosexuals from the majority population . . . There are "problems" with the society as a whole, and the society's mentality can't be changed overnight.

A key pillar of Soros' activities is his dictum that "no-one has a monopoly on the truth" and that "civic education" should replace the old "authoritarian" model. Civic education does not have to be "just a dialogue" between a teacher and students, he says; in addition, "we have projects like health education, where people use new ways to discuss issues like hygiene, diet, and sex." While "this does not sound like traditional civic education," he continues, it is "a new way for teachers to relate to their pupils," just as citizens must relate in new ways to governments and elected officials in societies trying to become more open and democratic.

Accordingly, throughout postcommunist Eastern Europe, the Soros Foundation's primary stated goal is to "democratize the education system" by "instituting curriculum reforms." What this means in practice has been demonstrated over the past three years by Serbia's education minister Gaso Knezevic, a friend and confidante of Soros. Since the first day of his tenure, Mr. Knezevic has insisted that schools must be transformed from "authoritarian" institutions into "exercise grounds" for the "unhindered expression of students' personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past." Mr. Knezevic started his reform with primary schools, with a pilot program of "educational workshops" for children ages 7 to 12. The accompanying manual, financed by the Open Society, rejects the quaint notion that the purpose of education is the "acquisition of knowledge" and insists that the teacher has to become the class "designer" and that his relationship with students should be based on "partnership."

In Russia, Soros' associates exercise great control over the selection of textbooks for Russian schools. According to a press release by the Gaidar Youth Library, financial support from the Open Society Institute provided it with computers, videocassettes, and CD's, all of which made "special training" for the children of "underprivileged people" possible in the library:

We organized a special seminar "Children's rights nowadays" for all specialists who took part in our project . . . The working group of the program "The Circle of Friends" is grateful to the "Open Society" Institute (Soros Fund, Budapest) for the opportunity to realize this project in a full volume.

In 1999, the Moscow Open Society office started a major five-year project, "The Development of Education in Russia." Its goal is to "reeducate rural teachers at a cost of US $100-150 million" (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 19, 1998). It is also applying a program called "Tolerance" in Russian secondary schools, but its masterminds may have made a linguistic blunder. According to a Russian critic of the program,

The Russian translation of this Latin word-tyerpimost-has the dual meaning of prostitution and could be confused with doma tyerpimosti, houses of ill fame . . . How come this financial manipulator tries to teach us about tolerance, us who grew up with Leo Tolstoy, one of the first philosophers of non-violence? . . . But Mr. Soros is also a horribly distorted mirror, which should make us see our own, present image, without blinking or turning away. There are times when evil can become an eye-opener, when its derisive laughter can waken us up and help regaining our strength. We should not miss this opportunity.

A first step in that direction may have been taken last November 7, when the OSI Moscow office was raided by a private security company hired by the owner of the building with whom the foundation was engaged in a protracted legal battle. Only weeks before, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the billionaire oligarch and OSI Moscow executive director who has his own NGO called the Open Russia Foundation, was arrested and charged with tax evasion, theft, forgery, and fraud. Soros denounced the arrest as an act of "persecution" that should disqualify Russia from belonging to the G-8 group of industrialized countries. "I believe that he acted within the constraints of the law. I am doing the same in the United States," said Soros, alluding to his multimillion-dollar donations toward "regime change" in Washington next November. The American press indignantly reported that the raid was directed against a philanthropic organization that had spent "more than $US 1 billion on charitable projects in Russia in the past 15 years."

"Racism" is Soros' regular obsession, but he faced the potential problem of finding it in racially nondiverse Eastern European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group-Gypsies! "Few minority groups in Europe face as much social, economic, and political discrimination as do Romani people," says OSI. Being a "Roma activist" has become a lucrative designation within the community. Seventy of the most promising ones came to the conference "Roma in Expanding Europe: Challenges for the Future," held in Budapest last summer, at which Soros inaugurated a "Decade of Roma Inclusion." The conference offered policy recommendations, some of which could have been written by Jesse Jackson: first, obligatory and free preschool education in desegregated classrooms; second, Romani assistants in the classroom, especially in preschool; third, antibias training for teachers and school administrators; and fourth, integration of Romani history and culture in textbooks at all levels.

Legally mandated affirmative-action programs for Roma in high schools and universities were recommended by the delegations of Rumania and Serbia-Montenegro. On employment, the conference recommended tax incentives for those who employ Roma and access to low-interest credit for small Roma-owned family businesses. The Czech and Slovak delegations also proposed setting aside a percentage of government contracts for Roma construction firms. In the area of housing, specific demands were made to combat "racism and discrimination," including the "legalization" of shantytowns and "equal access" to municipal housing. The conference concluded that combating racial discrimination against Roma must be pursued through the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation complying with the requirements of the E.U. Race Equality Directive.

The Rumanian delegation demanded that the Bucharest government recognize the Roma holocaust by issuing a public apology along with urgent adoption of a reparations package. The European Union was asked to make sure that Roma are broadly involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of all E.U. spending on Roma projects.

Soros' "programs" would have been deemed laughable or outrageous in their target countries only a decade ago. No one is laughing today, however. For thousands of young Eastern Europeans, to become a "Soroshite" represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, and, for many, to travel abroad. The chosen few go to Soros's own Central European University in Budapest, where they are taught that affirming a scientifically grounded truth is "totalitarian" and that the sovereign nation-state is evil.

There is not one patriot (Russian, Croat, Latvian, Serb, Rumanian, Hungarian) or one practicing Christian on Soros' payroll. In all postcommunist countries, Soros relies on the sons and daughters of the old communist establishment, who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic attachments to their native soil, culture, and traditions. The more successful among them-and the most loyal-may spend years drifting from one "project" to another, and some have been living that way for more than a decade. Soros has revealed (in Underwriting Democracy) that his Open Society foundations will help create an international web, at the heart of which will be the computerized base of personal data that will enable Western multinationals to find the local candidates they need.

These new janissaries, just like those of the Ottoman army of old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the master himself; as the Balkan proverb has it, "a convert is worse than a Turk." Nobody is more insanely vehement in his insults against the Serbian people and their history, religion, art, and suffering than a dozen Serb-born columnists who are on the payroll of Sonja Licht, Soros' Gauleiter in Belgrade.

Hoi polloi are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by "the Soros media"-the term now exists in over a dozen languages-from the Gazeta Wyborcza in Warsaw to Danas (Today) in Serbia, the Monitor in Montenegro, the Markiza TV channel in Bratislava, and Vreme weekly and the B-92 electronic media conglomerate in Belgrade. They invariably parrot Soros' views and ambitions, reflected by the agenda of the local Soros foundation at home and, in world affairs, by the International Crisis Group (ICG), largely financed by Soros and run by his appointees.

Soros' agenda in world affairs is clear from the fact that his appointees include Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the war against Serbia in 1999; Louise Arbour, the former chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal at The Hague; former assistant secretary of state Morton Abramowitz, an enthusiastic supporter of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in the wars of Yugoslav succession; and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose visceral Russophobia aided and abetted the rise of Osama bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts.

As Gilles d'Aymery noted two years ago, Soros is not just the power behind the Open Society Institute, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Crisis Group:

[L]ike an immense Jules Verne octopus, [he] extends his tentacles all over Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus as well as the republics of the former Soviet Union. With the help of these various groups [it is possible] not only to shape but to create the news, the agenda and public opinion to further aims which are, in short, the control of the world, its natural resources and the furtherance of the uniform ideal of a perfect world polity made in America.

That polity will not be "American" in any recognizable sense if Soros has his way, however. Here, he supports increased government spending and tax increases, drug legalization, euthanasia, open borders and immigration, immigrant entitlements, feminism, free abortion on demand, affirmative action, and "gay" rights. He opposes the death penalty in any circumstance. One of the trustees of OSI is Lani Guinier, the law professor whom Bill Clinton tried to nominate as head of the civil-rights division of the Department of Justice but changed his mind when she was found to favor minority veto power over legislation. Its president is Aryeh Neier, who had for 12 years been executive director of the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch and, before that, national director of the American Civil Liberties Union for eight years.

That he is anti-Bush is unremarkable, but Soros' statement last December that the defeat of the President is "a matter of life and death" was silly. His largesse to Bush's foes-although substantial-does not reflect the stated urgency of the moment: $15 million for America Coming Together; $3 million for John Podesta's new think tank; and $2.5 million for MoveOn.org falls far short of a month's cost of running his many foundations around the world.

Soros remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith east of the Trieste-Stettin line. He senses that his full-throttle intervention in America is not necessary, because things are gradually going his way anyway. No matter who is his party's anointed candidate come next November, the real choice will be between George and Gyorgy, and that is not much of a choice.

Chronicles' foreign-affairs editor Srdja Trifkovic is the author of The Sword of the Prophet: Islam-History, Theology, Impact on the World.

Soros's Death in America link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371254/posts?page=27#27

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.