Decoding 9/11 is the Key to Understanding Modern Geopolitics

Most observers of modern geopolitics face a heavy dose of confusion on a daily basis. The seemingly nonsensical nature of post-9/11 American foreign policy leaves too many questions unanswered, questions like “Why regime change at any cost in the Middle East?” or “Why do they hate Putin so much?” In order to answer them, one must first understand the geopolitical circumstances of the 20th century, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the lead up to 9/11.

As Halford Mackinder noted in his 1904 work The Geographical Pivot of History, the central, contiguous land mass consisting of Europe, Asia, and Africa is incontrovertibly the most populated and resource rich area in the world. Mackinder also recognized that Russia sits right in the middle of this land mass, in what he called the Heartland, meaning that any attempt at world domination and the establishment of a New World Order by the Globalist powers that be could never be successful without removing Russia as an obstacle. But as history has shown, military conquest of Russia is far easier said than done. Swedish and French campaigns chased Russian forces across vast but empty expanses before becoming bogged down and ultimately frozen and destroyed by Russia’s brutal winter. Arguably, the last successful, lasting military invasion of Russia occurred in 1240 when Batu Khan’s Golden Horde annexed Moscow and the Eurasian Steppe into the Mongol Empire.

To the Western oligarchs, the Russian obstacle was a undeniable impediment to their overall strategy. It also meant that the possibility of an alliance between resource rich Russia and industrialized Germany, the classic nightmare scenario of the West, would never go away. What’s more, any attempt to establish a Russian-led world hegemony would spring from the most geopolitically advantageous location on the globe.

With this in mind, a new plan was formulated by the elite- covert regime change. As revealed by Anthony C. Sutton’s seminal work Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, immensely powerful forces such as the Rockefellers, Morgan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase & Co.), National City Bank (now Citigroup) and other supposedly pro-Capitalist institutions and actors aided and funded Bolshevik revolutionaries like Leon Trotsky in toppling the Russian government and installing a one-party system under the Communists.

By 1917, the Marxist cultural infiltration was complete and Western elites had succeeded in capturing Russia without even firing a shot. The next step in establishing the New World Order was to merge the Soviet Union with the United States. We know this because the Reece Committee uncovered such a plan in their investigations of the Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller foundations in 1953.

“Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.”

“Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, ‘Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves.’

“And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, ‘Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?’

“I said, ‘Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.’ Whereupon, he made this statement to me, ‘Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.'”

-Norman Dodd, chief investigator for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece’s 1953 Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations, as interviewed by Edward G. Griffin in 1982

With the combined might of the US and the Soviet Union, Germany and the rest of world would not stand a chance, and the Globalist one world government would then be installed.

The German factions witnessed all of this, and knew that they could never resist such a alliance, or establish a hegemony of their own, if they were still divided into East and West. While the Globalists in America and Europe spent nearly all of the 20th century pushing Socialism, the policies of Perestroika began to take hold in the Soviet Union during the late 80’s, and it would have appeared that the great merger was under way. In 1989, the Soviet Union began to crumble, the “Sovietologists” and the fake intelligentsia were stunned, and the German Globalists sprang into action with a plan for quick reunification.

During the 90’s, America enjoyed its position as the sole superpower of the world. The pro-West Atlanticist politicians like Yeltsin who pushed for Perestroika would take power, and new policies of privatization developed with “help” from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Harvard Institute for International Development would result in a truly colossal amount of wealth going to a small group of Russian oligarchs. Yeltsin’s decision to sell off state-owned assets and natural resources to foreign entities for pennies on the dollar proved utterly catastrophic for Russia, but was good business for its oligarchs and Western Globalists like George Soros. Yeltsin had been conned into selling out Russia and its people, and by the late 90’s, everybody knew it.

On the other hand, German reunification went smoothly and quickly, and the country returned to its pre-war position as the economic and industrial powerhouse of Europe. The EU was formally established in 1993 via the Maastricht Treaty and the Euro was officially introduced. Monetary policy and an exchange rate mechanism were established as Europe became economically integrated into one union. Due to Germany’s central location and heavily industrialized export economy, it quickly became the strongest economy in Europe, and other countries who had become insolvent due to corruption or instability would eventually rely heavily on German prosperity.

Everything was going according to plan for the Globalists. Russia was being siphoned dry and controlled by the Atlanticists and central bankers, German Globalists were incorporating Europe into the centralization paradigm, and all of the appropriate structures and mechanisms to maintain a one world government were being installed.

And then it all fell apart on September 11, 2001.

In his excellent book on the subject, Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations, Dr. Joseph P. Farrell lays out a thoroughly researched and meticulously detailed prima facie case that the destruction of the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the attack on the Pentagon was not just an inside job by the elites here in America, but consisted of two separate operations, one within the other. According to Farrell, the first was an operation to facilitate a “new Pearl Harbor” called for by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which consisted of merely damaging the target buildings in order to destroy evidence of a covert slush fund consisting of trillions of dollars of stolen money, and to kick off the final sprint towards global hegemony under the leadership of American Globalists starting with regime change in the Middle East. US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan would carve out a chunk of the rapidly developing Asian continent and isolate Africa, splitting apart Mackinder’s “World-island.”

The second operation was kept a secret from the Bush administration and US Globalists, and it consisted of the actual leveling of the towers and building 7, the hijacking of the US nuclear arsenal and its command structure (the US had assumed a strategic nuclear posture that morning with nuclear armed bombers and submarines standing at full alert), and the isolation and control of key government officials such as Dick Cheney and leaders of Congress. Dr. Farrell posits that a partial coup had taken place capitalizing on the PNAC operation in order to commit nuclear blackmail against US Globalists in order to force them into (or perhaps, out of) a certain course of action or policy.

So who was responsible for blackmailing Bush and the US elites? Farrell unveils a tangled web connecting the 9/11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden to Deutsche Bank and a shadowy organization known as the Carl Duisberg Society. Duisberg was the CEO of German chemical giant Bayer during World War One, forcefully advocating for the development and use of chemical weapons derived from the toxic waste products of his chemical dye industries. Duisberg would also merge Bayer with BASF to form I.G. Farben, the infamous manufacturer of Zyklon B for the Nazi concentration camps.

This group is just one part of what Dr. Farrell calls the “Fascist International,” a mafia-like, extra-territorial covert organization consisting of Nazi holdovers from World War II, the German industrial magnates who followed them, and various levels of peons, cutouts, and shills from all over the world. One of those peons was, apparently, Mohamed Atta, mastermind of the 9/11 attack. Citing the late Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, Atta was listed as a Carl Duisberg Society scholarship recipient and tutor from 1995 to 1997, had opened accounts with Deutsche Bank while planning the attacks in Frankfurt, and participated in a joint US and German student exchange program for four years in Hamburg. Atta even spoke fluent German.

If Dr. Farrell’s hypothesis is correct, and this Fascist International did indeed turn against the Western elites, 9/11 would have represented the beginning of a factional war within that Globalist power structure, an event that Farrell calls “the divorce.” All of which begs the question: “What could have caused this factional war?”

On January 1, 2000, Boris Yeltsin resigned his position as President of the Russian Federation and appointed his Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, as his successor. Putin immediately set about reforming everything from tax codes to criminal law to economic policy in an effort to reverse the damage done in the 90’s. The same Russian oligarchs who were enriched by Yeltsin’s policies now found themselves locked in a power struggle with the new President over the direction of the country and its people. Although the Atlanticists still had a significant presence in Russian politics, it was clear that Putin had his own plans for Russia, and they did not involve playing along with a US-led New World Order.

With the largely successful prosecution of the Second Chechen War and having survived harsh criticism for his handling of the Kursk submarine incident, Putin had established himself as the manifestation of a new, nationalist direction for Russian politics. After the debacle of Yeltsin, the Russians had responded by picking the anti-Yeltsin, and therefore, the anti-Christ to the Globalists in the US. Putin’s ascension and solidification of power meant that the fleeting window of opportunity for one world government had come to a close. More than 80 years of preparation, decades of political maneuvering and clandestine activities, and untold amounts of blood and treasure spent would soon be all for nought. Mackinder’s Heartland was pulling itself out from under the Globalist thumb.

But with Putin reigning over Russia, Europe and Germany were spared from US global hegemony. In fact, one could make the argument that Putin was, geopolitically speaking, the best thing to happen to Germany since the reunification as the EU and its Euro are now facing the possibility of disintegration. The revivification of the Russian energy industry was an opportunity for the EU to receive cheaper fuel from a region of the world which was more stable than the Middle East, as well as a means to bypass the petrodollar cartel. Once again, we are face to face with the classic nightmare scenario for Western elites- a rapprochement and alliance between Russia and Germany. Whether or not such an alliance is probable or even possible is an excellent question, but what is far more obvious is the effect of Russia’s revival in driving a wedge between Globalist factions. A wedge which would, many years later, manifest itself in the form of President Donald Trump and the Deep State Junta.

I speculate that it is the effect of this new balance of power, or perhaps a disagreement over how to respond to it and its source in the Kremlin, which would have been one cause for the schism among the Globalists, and ultimately, the “divorce” of 9/11. I suspect another cause would have been a deep suspicion among US elites towards the Germans regarding any potential role they may have played in precipitating the collapse of the Soviet Union at a time which would have benefited Germany’s geopolitical position. As stated earlier, the German reunification was handled quickly and smoothly, Angela Merkel herself assisted in this effort by serving as a deputy spokesperson under the stewardship of Lothar de Maizière, who had run on a platform calling specifically for rapid reunification.

Although Merkel and Putin may have more than a few shared interests, I don’t believe that Putin is a pawn for German Globalists. I do believe, however, that Putin is more than willing to play a role in helping China in their attempt to usurp world dominance. While environmental catastrophists in the US and EU demand carbon taxes, stifling regulations, and an end to fossil fuels, emerging markets are more than happy to continue buying Siberian gas. Meanwhile, China has the jump on the US in developing renewable energy technologies, having spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the development of solar panels, thorium nuclear reactors, and even high-voltage undersea power cables to export energy to other countries. While the US was busy spending trillions overturning the Middle East to placate the Saudis, the rest of the world was taking care of their own interests.

Because Globalists pay no mind to silly, antiquated things like patriotism or love of country, they don’t have to suffer the consequences of their misguided, megalomaniacal quest for world domination and the foolhardy attitude they embrace. The window on a US-led hegemony has closed, and a new door has been opened for China to take on the wretched mantle of Globalism with its totalitarian, Hitlerian philosophy elevating the state over God, the collective over the individual, and the end justifying the means. But please do not resent the Chinese, pity them. They have made the ultimate Faustian bargain, one which will slowly but most surely destroy the beauty of their ancient culture and enslave their many people.

Merkel’s Attack on the Internet Giants and the Growing Rift Between American and EU Globalists

Whether doing too much or doing too little, the social networks will never be able to please Merkel and her toadies in Brussels.

Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany and the loneliest politician in the world, has recently accused the American internet giants Facebook and Google of using their search algorithms to create echo chambers and stifle public discourse in Europe.

Angela Merkel: internet search engines are ‘distorting perception’

All of which is ironic as the EU had just accused the big social networks of not involving themselves enough in public discourse. After the Paris Terror attacks, the EU developed a “code of conduct” agreement for Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft pushing the censoring of racially-motivated and violent hate speech. At a 2015 U.N. development summit in New York, Merkel herself was caught on a hot mic pressuring Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to crack down on hate speech in his platform. Merkel and the EU’s multiculturalism and open borders ideology intentionally misconstrues a distrust and skepticism of unvetted refugees and migrants as racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic hate speech. By allowing the migrants to flow unabetted, war and regime change in Syria and other middle eastern nations can continue. Popular support is needed to facilitate this.

There are many in Silicon Valley who readily identify with the Globalist mission. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg is actively assisting the Clinton campaign, hoping to become Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has been working directly with Hillary’s campaign since October of 2014.

Twitter also gave into the pressure and formed the “Twitter Trust & Safety Council,” comprised mostly of Progressive organizations who have bought into the conflation of an actual western liberal concept of equality under the law with freedom from societal ills. This misconception legitimizes political correctness, accusations of hate speech, and various other pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual guilt tripping, shaming and bullyism. Ever since then, Twitter’s value as a company has been on a downward trajectory. The reality is, bureaucracy and regulation, no matter how well-intentioned, displace freedom. Constantly being afraid of having your message conflated with any kind of bigotry is not fun, it’s repressive and uncomfortable. Twitter is now laying off 9% of its employees and shutting down Vine.

End Of The Vine: Twitter Says It’s Closing Video App Amid Wider Layoffs

Whether doing too much or doing too little, the social networks will never be able to please Merkel and her toadies in Brussels. These bureaucrats can only do one thing- expand the bureaucracy, and now they are trying to bring the social networks into their top-down governance structure. The EU will continue to heap edicts and regulations onto social media in order to assert de facto control over them, otherwise they won’t be welcome in the Eurozone. Control over the discourse, not protecting it, is the goal.

Although they may be giants of the internet, social media firms are still treated like pawns on the global chessboard, and are getting caught up in the economic tug of war between American and EU Globalists. After the EU fined Apple $14.5 billion for corporate tax avoidance, the US Department of Justice levied a $14 billion fine against the slowly unraveling Deutsche Bank. The Apple fine was dropped, probably because the fall of a hugely over-leveraged Deutsche Bank would have triggered another global recession. It looks like tit-for-tat, and now these American social media networks are being treated more like interlopers than guests.

But I think Mark Zuckerberg has seen the writing on the wall and realized that some of these individuals, such as Sheryl Sandberg, are willing to use a business as a stepping stone to reach their own political ambitions, and will happily jump ship if Facebook starts to sink like Twitter. Although I’m not sure if Zuckerberg genuinely cares about open political discourse or the welfare of the American people, I do believe he knows better than to let ideologues twist and manipulate Facebook until it is politicized and broken. He knows that the Globalists like Merkel running the EU and Hillary running for President, have no personal stakes in his business. They view it, and him, as a tool. When Trump supporter Peter Thiel became the target of ostracism for making a political donation, Zuckerberg knew he had to make a decision and take a stand to decide the future of his company. His leaked internal message tells the story:

When Oligarchs Get Hacked: The George Soros Leak

The latest hack and dump of 2,576 of the foundations’ internal documents and memos show that the Open Society Foundations are actually major purveyors of the Western soft power culture revolution.

After covering Putin’s plans for Russia last week, it would only be appropriate to take a look at what the Western leaders of the Globalist faction have been up to. The recent hack into billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has conveniently given us such an opportunity. But before we can get into the leaks, a brief review of George Soros, and exactly what his role is among the rest of the Western leadership is in order.

George Soros started his career in investment finance trading in European stocks, working with the burgeoning European Economic Community, a predecessor for the EU. Throughout the 70’s, Soros would successfully go on to developing and managing several of his own lucrative hedge funds, including the Quantum Fund, the most profitable hedge fund in history. As with many of the idle rich, Soros would then fall into meddling with world affairs, specifically in the areas of press and news media. In the mid to late 80’s Soros cut his teeth on the Globalist game by spreading the appeal of Capitalism to the ailing Communist Bloc nations. As of 1994, Soros financed over 40 radio and TV stations and press outlets in Eastern Europe, and gave $10 million to Russian news outlets in 1998. After the fall of Communism, Soros’ control over Russian state organs became more direct. If you’ll recall from last week’s William F. Engdahl article, it was advisors with financial ties to Soros who formed the Yeltsin economic team, which privatized Russian state assets and sold them to Western investors at wholesale prices. It was also Yeltsin who gave into pressure from the West to privatize the Russian State Bank and tie the value of the Ruble to the Dollar.

In American business, Soros is an investor of media conglomerate Viacom and through his various foundations, has funded and given grants to dozens of news programs from NPR and televisions shows on MSNBC to blogs like ThinkProgress and Alternet. He has even sponsored journalism awards. If this is the first time you are hearing about this leak, those might be a few reasons why.

As for Soros’ Open Society Foundations, they are anything but. The organizations are literally at the bottom of the list for transparency, making these leaks all the more telling.

Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 7.44.04 PM

The self-proclaimed purpose of these foundations is to “seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments…” and many other righteous causes in the name of Western democracy. The latest hack and dump of 2,576 of the foundations’ internal documents and memos show that the Open Society Foundations are actually major purveyors of the Western soft power culture revolution. One function of these foundations is to serve as a global clearing house for rich investors to assemble and push exploitative business arrangements and for-profit loans along with IMF loans to distressed nations, and as a nexus to coordinate and manifest said deals and arrangements via public policy through monetary grants and funds to agreeable NGO’s and politicians. The foundations also serve to buy up media outlets and sway public opinion on social issues as well as political candidates. With that much chicanery and charlatanism on display in these leaks, the lack of transparency would seem necessary.

The Ukraine

From the Open Society leak, we have a document from Soros concerning the ongoing conflict with Russia over the Ukraine in particular.

A short and medium – term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine[pdf]

In the document, Soros himself lays out strategic goals for the West with an aim of reversing Putin’s recent gains in the Ukraine. He first suggests a rearmament program for the Ukrainian military, then prioritizes the defense of the National Bank of the Ukraine, the primary recipient and distributor of IMF loans (and Ukrainian debt) in the country. Soros’ solution to bolstering the current pro-Western regime is to develop yet another loan program, this time borrowing directly from the EU common market and EU budget, to prop up the stagnant Ukrainian economy. He then plans to encourage investment in the war-torn country, stating “To turn the tables on Putin, Ukraine needs to be converted from a source of political risk to an attractive investment destination.” Soros even appoints a Minister Abromavičius to coordinate a donor and investor conference with the Soros-backed Project Management Office.

Once the insurance is available, I am prepared to invest up to $1 billion in Ukrainian businesses. This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine must become an attractive investment destination. The investments will be for-profit but I will pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am advocating policies in search of personal gain.

With Eastern Europe still reeling from the iron fist of Communism, the Ukraine ought to be fertile ground for Western influence, but a stagnant economy threatens to ruin all of that. Considering the fact that China and Russia, and the Stolypin Club, are contemplating the establishment of economic unions throughout Eurasia and the South China Sea, the West needs to sweeten its deal despite the fact that Ukraine has not been granted membership into the EU or NATO. Now that Putin has played his hand in the invasion, the groundwork to “fast track” said membership processes is being established by the West.

Europe

Moving onto Europe, another leaked Open Society Foundations document shows the group’s efforts to manipulate public opinion towards immigration policies.

Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review[pdf]

If you’ve been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the EU and Europe, the immigration crisis has proven to be a political powder keg, being the primary motivation for the Brexit referendum and a key to the geopolitics of Eurasia. Of note is the EU’s, and specifically German Chancellor Merkel’s, relentless push for control over Europe’s immigration policy and the dispersal of Syrian refugees across the region. Looking at the Learnings/Conclusions portion of the document, the foundation makes its agenda very clear:

Accepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react
Observing our partners as they respond and adjust to the new reality in light of the crisis in Europe and the Mediterranean, we see little attention given to long-term planning or fundamentally new approaches to advocacy.

Observing such a popular resistance to Globalist policies should be no surprise to the foundation, yet the plan is to continue pushing forward with their agenda by “reexamining methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels.” Soros is a major donor to the Center for American Progress, also subject to the leak, who have recently targeted and tracked organizations and individuals opposed to the spread of the Islamic ideology, applying the blanket label of racist and bigot. The following is found on page 32 of the Center for American Progress leaked documents.

Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse[pdf]

CAP will research and track the activities of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia, including Stop Islamization of America, led by Pamela Geller; the Center for Security Policy, led by Frank Gaffney; David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, which sponsors Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch; the Middle East Forum, led by Daniel Pipes; the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, led by Cliff May; and Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney. In addition, CAP will examine the role played by right-wing media, the Tea Party movement, prominent politicians, pundits, and conservative donors in spreading anti-Muslim hysteria.

So much for an open society with “a diversity of opinions.” Mr. Soros doesn’t have a problem with your opinions as long as they conform to his own. Yet, if you disagree with his immigration policy, and are not “[a]ccepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react,” you will be labeled a bigot and shamed. Unfortunately for Mr. Soros and the rest of the Globalist elite, the people of Europe are not so willing to hand over the power to legislate who will and will not be allowed in their country. The geopolitical dilemma the Globalists have blundered into with Erdogan in Turkey will garner zero sympathy from the people, as it was the Globalists who originally wanted regime change in Syria.

The US

In the US, Soros has been busy attempting to sway the election towards his candidate and fellow Globalist, Hillary Clinton, whose campaign he has already donated $8 million to.

OPEN SOCIETY U.S. PROGRAMS BOARD MEETING New York, New York October 1-2, 2015[pdf]

On page 21 of this leaked report presented to an Open Society meeting, the foundation discusses the challenges of using “decentralized movements” to manipulate public opinion.

Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season, we’ve seen increased visibility from several burgeoning social justice movements, each vying to shape the nation’s political agenda.

Bringing up the point that they furnished the BlackLivesMatter movement with a $650,000 grant when it was still in its infancy, the foundation must have felt as though they’ve bought up the movement as the idea of manipulating and shaping the direction of BlackLivesMatter is proposed. This would allow the foundation an opportunity to further manipulate and shape public discourse under the guise of what was originally billed as a legitimate national conversation on race relations.

This begs the question of what is the appropriate role for philanthropy, in either supporting or defining policy agendas. Does philanthropy undermine the field when it advocates directly in spheres of political influence instead of empowering grantees to do the same?…
That support calls into question how we might most appropriately support such efforts; specifically whether we should seek to shape the movement as opposed to facilitate its direct action.

The point of all of this manipulation is already made plain by the very first sentence of the section “Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season…” A recent Pew Research report has placed a new emphasis on winning votes from the Hispanic and Black communities, a demographic that substantially helped Barack Obama reach office. If Soros is supporting these so-called social justice reforms and the BlackLivesMatter movement to sway voters towards his candidate of choice, then he is not acting in an altruistic manner at all. Instead, he merely wants the candidate he bought, that’s Hillary Clinton, to win so he can spread his influence further in the federal government and on the world stage. Yet another leaked document would support this assertion.

Voting Rights Portfolio Review: Outcomes Summary[pdf]

This document details the Open Society Foundations’ attempt to encourage policies that would bring members of the Black and Hispanic communities to the polls in greater numbers.

We outlined two critical points in time—the election of President Obama and the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder—that motivated us and the field to beat back conservative attempts to suppress the vote of people of color and other marginalized communities and, at the same time, push for affirmative reforms in election administration that would add voters of color to the rolls. [emphasis added]

Notice no talk of adding additional security measures to the actual electronic voting machines themselves, which are subject to fewer regulations and checks than Las Vegas slot machines. There is no mention of the open accusation made by Clinton Eugene Curtis, who stated under oath in front of the U.S. House Judiciary Members in Ohio that he was instructed by Congressman Tom Feeney to create software that could throw the 2000 election one way or the other. Mr. Soros, along with his conservative opponents on this issue, have no intention of protecting the electorate or the legitimacy of the election, they are just trying to influence, spin, and game the system to keep them, their political friends, and all of their toadies in positions of power. Whether the result has a racist outcome disproportionately disadvantaging “voters of color,” or, on the contrary, produces more equity and fairness in society is of little value as the motivation is not altruistic, but entirely self-serving. If this issue concerning race never interfaced with elections, what sort of return would Soros receive for his investment?

The value of Soros and the Open Society Foundations adopting the “social justice” equality approach is the seemingly unassailable nature of their position. By taking on the face of social groups like BlackLivesMatter and various “social progress” movements, Soros’ agents can masquerade as victims of ignorance, circumstance, and poverty. By identifying as both victim and aggressor, Soros can continue to manipulate public opinion from the shadows, using his victim thralls and social justice warriors to label and shame those who disagree with his narrative as racists and lacking virtue.

Whether race baiting, funding divisive rhetoric, adding names to the black list, or calling for armament programs for foreign armies, the Open Society Foundations are not the peaceful, altruistic organizations that Mr. Soros would have you think they are. The foundations don’t strengthen democracy, they subvert it all over the world. They don’t promote free speech or a plurality of opinions, they stamp it out and silence those who disagree. The Open Society Foundations are nothing more than a weapon in the Western soft power arsenal, in a struggle that the Nazis would have called “Weltanschauungskrieg,” or worldview warfare. This  weapon is becoming less and less effective as Soros’ lies and schemes are becoming more transparent every day, and this leak is not going to help one bit. But then again, if your global strategy relies on widespread ignorance, secrecy, and obfuscating the debate, don’t be surprised when the truth leaks out, eventually.

 

 

Merkel’s Brexit Reprisals an Effort to Snuff Out a Contagion

Judging from Merkel’s reaction, the fall of the EU, albeit unlikely, is a very real possibility.

As China is establishing their own economic union in the South China Sea, the economic union of Europe is still experiencing the aftershocks of the British referendum to leave. The EU’s response to the Brexit came from Angela Merkel:

Merkel throws down gauntlet to May: No free market access while curbing immigration

The immigration issue, particularly in relation to Middle Eastern refugees and migrants, was a major point of contention between the EU bureaucracy and British conservatives and possibly the royal family. The fact that Merkel continues to demand EU control over this policy is somewhat surprising considering that the Chancellor herself admitted that the immigration policies in contention undermined domestic security this past Monday. Other serious criticisms include loss of national sovereignty and rule by non-elected committees, but increasingly unpopular economic policies (and sanctions preventing trade with Russia in particular) are bringing the wealthier entrepreneurial classes into the dispute against the EU. The fact that many member nations are voicing identical grievances should be concerning as the Brexit could spur a contagion of new national referendums to leave. By withholding trade privileges from non-members, Merkel is attempting to establish additional consequences for leaving.

“We will make sure that negotiations will not be carried out as a cherry-picking exercise. There must be and there will be a palpable difference between those countries who want to be members of the European family and those who don’t,” [Merkel] said.

And those additional consequences may be necessary as Italy has rejected the renewal of the Russian sanctions that have affected the Italian economy as much as Russia. Italy’s pro-EU prime minister may be ousted in a fall referendum, and Italian ministers have stated that they will let the EU disintegrate further if there are no reforms.

‘The Unthinkable Is Happening’: Italy Demands EU Reform, Warns Over Full Collapse

Judging from Merkel’s reaction, the fall of the EU, albeit unlikely, is a very real possibility. If Italy leaves, you can expect other southern European nations to leave as well. Both Greece and Spain were subject to repressive austerity measures and both are major trade partners with Italy, and their departures could easily spell the end of the union. The Italians may have forced the EU into making a concession or two, but if we were to see it all come crashing down around the head of Merkel and the European bureaucrats, expect to see Germany picking up the pieces to start over again.