The Financial Times has selected George Soros as its Person of the Year. According to the paper, this choice was made both as a reflection of his achievements and for the values he represents:
He is the standard bearer of liberal democracy and open society… For more than three decades, Mr Soros has used philanthropy to battle against authoritarianism, racism and intolerance. Through his long commitment to openness, media freedom and human rights, he has attracted the wrath of authoritarian regimes and, increasingly, the national populists who continue to gain ground, particularly in Europe.
Reading this nonsense has prompted me to revisit Soros after almost a decade. In reality this “philanthropist” is a monster who has been promoting—relentlessly—the Western world’s political, moral and biological decay. Philanthropy used to be defined as “love to mankind; benevolence toward the whole human family; universal good will; desire and readiness to do good to all men.” Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates, George Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support for groups that advocate lifestyles and causes that are invariably destructive, or outright repellant.
Soros promotes the legalization of hard drugs. He insists on the need to accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies.” It was tangibly thanks to his intervention that the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse.
In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. His mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentioned unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long. PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a chilling turn of phrase, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and a contributor to groups advocating amnesty and special rights for immigrants, including National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes the preservation and expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros also supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocates ever more stringent gun control; demands abolition of the death penalty, supports same-sex “marriage” and promotion of homosexuality in schools.
Of his Open Society network Soros claims that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture.” The way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism plain and simple, activism in pursuit of all the progressive causes of the radical left—and some distinctly creepy ones, such as “Death in America.” It is understandable that Soros wants to call his support of such causes “philanthropy.” It is unpardonable for the media to accept such designation at face value, and even promote his ideas as the FT is doing. In reality Soros uses what he calls “philanthropy” to deconstruct the remaining basis of good life, traditional values and attitudes, in America and all over the world.
Soros’ “philanthropic” activities in America have been tested on a grand scale abroad. His foreign network of “non-governmental organizations” is active primarily in Eastern Europe. It is centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries and has an endowment of just under $20 billion. As early as 1994 his foundations spent a total of $300 million; by 1998 that figure had risen to $574 million. These are truly enormous sums in Eastern Europe, where their effect on the targeted society is far greater than the “bang” the same amount would yield in the West.
His many 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 South-Eastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast cancer detection programs, or for prenatal or post-natal care. No, Soros’ main goal is “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly his Public Health Program has focused on the introduction of easily available abortion in Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia, and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. Why is Soros so keen to promote more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: the region is experiencing a demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortions cannot be the answer either: only five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000: the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Romania and Ukraine. The logical answer is that Soros wants as few little East European Christians born into this world as possible.
Soros’ “Public Health Programs” additionally “support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities,” such as AIDS sufferers, and promote “harm reduction” focusing on needle/syringe exchange and supply of methadone to addicts. Starting in the late 1990’s, the Soros network has given a successful kick-start to previously non-existent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for LGBT “rights” has long since morphed into aggressive political activism and demands for special treatment all over Eastern Europe.
Education is a key pillar of Soros’ activities. His Leitmotif is the dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Even under communism Eastern Europe had preserved high educational standards, but the Soros Foundation seeks to replace the old system with the concept of schools as “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.” In Soros’ scheme of things the purpose of education is not “acquisition of knowledge”: the teacher is to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.” Soros’ reformers also insist on an active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.”
“Racism” is Soros’ regular obsession, but he had a problem finding it in racially non-diverse East European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group—Gypsies (“Roma”). His protégés a decade ago started coming up with policy demands to “protect” this group: anti-bias training of teachers and administrators; integration of Romani history and culture in the textbooks at all levels; legally mandated affirmative action programs for Roma; tax incentives for employers who employ them; access to low-interest credit for Roma small family businesses; setting aside a percentage of public tenders for Roma firms; legislation to fight “racism and discrimination” in housing; adoption of “comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation”; creation of mechanisms “to monitor implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and assist victims of racial discrimination in seeking remedies”; recognition by governments of “the Roma slavery and the Holocaust through public apology along with urgent adoption of a package of reparatory measures.” A race relations industry is now in place, with the self-serving agenda of finding “discrimination” in order to keep itself in place for ever.
To normalize his agenda to the targeted population, millions of East Europeans are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media” (the term is by now well established in over a dozen languages). In all post-communist countries Soros relies on the sons and daughters of the old Communist establishment who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic vestiges of their native soil, culture and tradition. The comparison with the janissary corps of the Ottoman Army is more apt than that with the Communist Party. The new janissaries, just like the old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the Master himself.
Soros’ agenda in world affairs is apparent from the fact that over the years the leading lights of his “International Crisis Group” have included Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), 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; and the late Zbigniew Brzezinski. Soros is also a key player behind the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. He uses these groups 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 undermining of national sovereignty of traditional nation-states, above all in Europe.
Soros has repeatedly admitted to having ‘messianic fantasies’ as a child, even believing himself to be God. His activities indicate that the notion has long matured into a coherent plan of action. His audacity is breathtaking but unsurprising; deceit is his vocation. George Soros is a bold and proud promoter of each and every key symptom of the Decline of the West, a grandomaniac who, in a New Yorker profile in 1995, reflected on the parallels between himself and the God of the Old Testament, and observed that as a child he thought of himself as superhuman. Now that he is old he apparently no longer only thinks, he knows that he is superhuman. His yearning for man’s God-like absolute freedom cannot stop short of the freedom to choose death over life.