The Soros Saga


By 2010 people had begun seeing the Open Society is more boisterous. It only took two decades for Soros to make an effective and extensive network of influence. This in-depth article “Open Society vs. Eastern Europe” is an enlightening read.

It’s all something that erases the heritage and legacy of individual counties. Practicing the philosophy that a world of identical people with a shared artificial culture is easier to rule. The previously mentioned piece tells of a gay pride parade held that year in Belgrade, Serbia. The pro-European government promoted it as a sign the country was “ready” for the EU and was now a “tolerant” place. In reality, riot police had to guard a few hundred LGBT activists (imported from Western Europe) against the opposing group of protesters. Ten times as large.

Any respect towards traditions is something that George sees as blocking his path. What is that path? Soros thinks of European countries as temporary agreements. Ol’ George believes being loyal to one’s country is crazy talk. This Open Society dream of his is a utopian globalist paradise. What’s at stake with the European migrant crisis is a country’s sense of history and culture. Soros would prefer to tear down religion and shape the education system away from valuing it.

Things make more sense if you shift your thinking on what Soros and the Open Society Foundation are. What they define as philanthropy work is actually more of a sort of political activism. The former focuses on helping people, while the latter focuses on persuading politicians.

How I’m going to approach talking about Europe is starting and ending with Hungary.

As mentioned previously, Soros had an interest in the Education field. So much, in fact, he established the Central European University in 1991 over in Budapest Hungary. CEU is an American-like university, with a charter arrangement from the state of New York Board of Regents. It functions like any other college in their program offerings and departments. Business, Economics, Gender Studies, and so forth. The difference with CEU is it serves as a breeding ground for the Open Society ideology. Until the 2000s the University focused on issues with the open society and Europe. But by the next decade, they broadened the scope of that discussion to a global scale.


The Media Research Center did a report on George’s education donations as well. They put out a list of 19 different schools gifted at least $1 million from Soros. Places like Columbia University, Georgetown, Harvard, Maryland, and California. But the top among these was his own. The Open Society Foundation gave $250 million to the Central European University between 1991 and 2011. A hotbed of far left ideology. George uses the institution as a speaking platform for himself, even using the lectures he gave there as an excuse for a book. A seminar called “Promoting Integration of Migrants and Minorities Through Media” had the Center for Independent Journalism co-hosting. That group received $50,000 from Soros.

Keep in mind some CEU graduates and alumni go on to political careers. People like: Darko Angelov (Macedonian Diplomat/Ambassador to Hungary), Dušan Pavlović (Serbian political economist/politician) Lívia Járóka (Hungarian Romani politician/Member of the European Parliament), and Giorgi Margvelashvili (President of Georgia).

This type of institution fosters a sense of obligation for these people to act on George’s behalf. You’ll see later on an example of this. Of Soros supporting a politician’s education as a point of consideration. It’s almost guaranteed given the curriculum of CEU’s classrooms. Agendas consisting of the Open Society philosophies, shaping and brainwashing minds. With teaching staff *who as well* come from places of political power across Europe. That type of authority can command a student’s admiration with little difficulty.


On April 4th, 2017, Hungary passed a higher education law that had a significant impact on CEU. This new regulation mandates universities to open in the country they registered in. Otherwise, they must close down unless their origin country makes an agreement with the government.

Later that month, a New York Times article gives us the perspective of Hungary’s Prime Minister:

“Mr. Orban has accused Mr. Soros of “preparing liberal activists” for political life in the Balkans and Central Europe, adding, “The Soros empire set out to promote the cause of migrants and mass migration.”

An earlier article from the end of March elaborated on Orban’s thinking here:

“There is competition among universities and it is inexplicable why we should put our own universities at a disadvantage […] while securing an unfair advantage for the foreign university,” Orban told state radio.”

This all adds up to the Soros methodologies explored earlier. Viktor Orban knows what he’s talking about. This is because he got a Soros scholarship to study at Oxford back in ‘89.

This education indoctrination is not limited to CEU. Not by a long shot. It’s the “get ’em while they’re young” technique. Soros is into that sort of thing as is the Open Society. In an article, they propose early childhood intervention for children. Which kind of children? You’d assume they mean those with possible developmental delays or disabilities. OSF expands the definition to families lacking resources or skills to raise children. They try to paint intervention as more of a middle-man rather than an institution in itself. They want to mold your kids “proper” during their formative years. To that end, the Open Society Foundations launched their Step by Step Program back in 1994. Designed to reform childhood education in 15 different European and Asian countries. By October 1998, they evolved into the International Step by Step Association. So now it’s a network of people and NGOs to take their plan to a deeper level. And what do you think they teach in these classrooms?

Let me quote them on it:

“Since its establishment ISSA has developed a number of pedagogical tools and guides designed for teachers and other early childhood stakeholders emphasizing inclusion, diversity, and the values required in open, democratic societies.”

Another example is “open-source” textbooks in Poland, editable by teachers and students. It’s from the education system that Soros attacks the traditional family unit. Accusing them of prejudice. Labeling it as sexist, racist, homophobic. OSI wants to redefine education as an equal partnership between teachers and students. They desire to shift it away from being about the acquirement of knowledge.

Soros first got an edge in Europe when the Romani situation happened. He used that as an opportunity for OSI to start beating the “racism” drum. The Romani are Indian nomads that live off other people’s property. A group that makes the gypsy lifestyle choice. Soros made it into a race issue that came into play in education, economic, and political systems. From that single viewpoint alone, George’s people can enact various institutional measures. With education, for example, they can demand teachers undergo anti-bias training. OSI could order Romani history and culture integration into school textbooks. On the political end, you’ve got efforts started to legally mandate affirmative action. Plus an avalanche of legislative proposals to fight perceived discrimination in housing. Tax incentives and special access to low-interest credit result from the economic angle.

It’s efforts like this, at changing society and the government, that is at play here. Not only in Europe, but George’s efforts worldwide. This section’s main point is analyzing how George Soros pulls Europe’s political strings. To do that, we have to keep in mind the Open Society Foundation’s role. As the group acts on behalf of what Mr. Soros demands of them. It’s a lot to take in. But I guarantee by the end of this part you’ll better follow these chess pieces moved around. It’s a $14 billion dollar game George is playing. That number is how much Open Society spent in the past 35 years, according to their site.


In September 2016 George Soros wrote “Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants” on the Wall Street Journal. He’s blunt in his delivery when writing. George says forced migration is already a thing no matter what. Soros places blame on world governments not having the adequate policies to deal with it.

“Migrants are often forced into lives of idle despair, while host countries fail to reap the proven benefit that greater integration could bring.”

George frames the argument that makes it sound like his solutions are the only way forward. He calls for infrastructure reform in European countries to accommodate this supposed inevitability. George says Obama requested US companies in a call to action to help deal with forced migration.

“All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successful — because I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrants — and any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.”

These companies all met up together at the UN to discuss their plans. Soros explained they’d be working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee every step of the way.

It’s worth mentioning the United Nations explored Replacement Migration back in 2001. They consider it a possible “solution” to declining and aging populations. Their published paper states the U.N. projects population decline in Europe and Japan. The United Nations sees that as a challenge for their organization. One that demands they reassess their programs and policies to study the extent of the impact.

That right there shows the political entanglement of this situation. But we’re just getting started, Brittany.


To explain the evidence of this next part, I need to go over where all these Open Society documents came from. Last year, August 2016, 2500 Open Society insider documents became public. George’s foundation got hacked. The site in question where these leak files were all hosted was After I started looking into Soros a few month back, the site shut down. The story of this hack was quickly buried by the mainstream media for the most part. Since it was election season, everyone’s attention spans were shorter than usual.

According to Zero Hedge, DCLeaks published a statement alongside this massive release:

“George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, political activist and author who is of Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and holds dual citizenship. He drives more than 50 global and regional programs and foundations. Soros is named as the architect and sponsor of almost every revolution and coup around the world for the last 25 years. Thanks to him and his puppets USA is thought to be a vampire, not a lighthouse of freedom and democracy. His slaves spill blood of millions and millions people just to make him even more rich. Soros is an oligarch sponsoring Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, hundreds of politicians all over the world. This website is designed to let everyone take a look at restricted documents of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and related organisations. It represents workplans, strategies, priorities and other activities of Soros. These documents shed light on one of the most influential network operating worldwide.”

I have a copy of all the files, so no worries. You can access them here.

As far back as 2012 (PDF), we see their reports suggest that OSI influences the drafted laws. In such a way that it’s heavily favored toward giving NGOs loose restrictions.

These documents get down to specific instances. One talks of proposed European Court of Human Rights reform, initiated by the UK. OSI didn’t like the idea so they made an intense effort to counter. The group coordinated with different ministries in European capitals to dispute the move. It *does* have an impact. The report says OSI neutered the UK’s proposals in regards to admissibility criterion. Further on, this document connects OSI, NGOs, and the European Commission. The Open Society meets up at the Fundamental Rights Platform every year. This is where 180 NGOs get together and collaborate on Fundamental Rights issues. It’s important to note the EU organized this Fundamental Rights Platform themselves. Here they have a communication channel with OSI to exchange information. But that doesn’t mean OSI has total authority over the European Union. A later point in this particular leak details OSI reacting to their nervousness. They were worried about funding reforms impacting money flow from the Commission to NGOs. Their remedy involved pressuring Parliament for an amendment. OSI used NGOs in Brussels and OSF grantees to push it to attention. They discreetly distributed a strategy for possible amendments to their “friendly” MEPs.

The reality of this is OSI seems to wield more power than actual European countries at times. Enough to shift the direction at decision points. A later part of this same report shows this is the case. It says the European Commission challenged Italy’s authorities responses on rights violations. The reason pointed to as the cause was OSI fed the Commission info to use.

It was around this time that OSI was putting the “Fund to Counter Xenophobia in Western Europe (Xen Fund)” in place. An explanation page on the Open Society website describes what exactly this fund was:

“The Open Society Fund to Counter Xenophobia, a grant-making program of the Open Society Foundations, will tackle both the causes and manifestations of xenophobia in order to see acts and practices of discrimination reduced, to guarantee non-discriminatory policies and to (re)gain a social and cultural consensus in which xenophobic views and practices are considered unacceptable.”

Xen Fund has a contact database of over 100 allies per country at their disposal. Activists, academics, donors, journalists, elected officials, NGOs, you name it. This document makes specific mention of Hope not Hate being a successful part of the system and a HUGE help to OSI.

Let’s look at a PDF report from the next month. OSI recognized EU’s involvement in Burma during the transition phase before 2015’s elections. OSI seized that opportunity to connect with EU policymakers. Elsewhere, OS-Brussels reacted very loud during the adoption of anti-discrimination laws in Ukraine. This was because they adopted the draft without asking civil society folks about it. They didn’t get the chance to give it a thumbs up. This sort of process was happening in other places like Moldova. Their parliament finally passed anti-discrimination laws after three years of OSI advocacy work. But the Open Society had other intentions for backing this. The most important being the law was key for Moldovan citizens to have visa-free travel in the EU. The OSI document talks about this in particular at a later bullet point. The passing of this law didn’t happen smoothly. Local politicians only followed through at the last minute. They stalled as long as they could until the final setup deadline. According to this report, this law is a hook for the EU to litigate related situations as they see fit. Giving them a further reason to generally keep tabs on what goes on in the country. The main point to understand here is how the international community views OSI. A part of this document details their reporting on Central Asian border concerns. It gives the impression internationally people hold Open Society Foundation in high regard. OSI hosted a seminar, making recommendations on fixing the issue to various officials. NATO and EU representatives listened to their human rights and infrastructure viewpoints.

Let’s get down to (PDF) brass tacks here. All Open Society Institute of Europe staff are open society policy experts. They’ve got their own talking heads ready to go at a moment’s notice in Brussels. The group’s think tanks spit out in-depth analysis papers to justify changes demanded. They know their targets when it comes to EU decision makers. OSI adds pressure by using the press and change the conversation the public has. That makes the grounds for debate happen on OSI’s terms. External Action Service diplomats push the group’s goals through. They have political actors of their own that are in direct contact with policy-makers. Imposing OSI’s agenda onto the EU government’s to-do list.

The particular paper makes special mention of Soros.

“The personal commitment of George Soros is an exceptionally effective and valuable tool; OSEPI follows up after he has opened doors, pressed high-level contacts and made the case in his own words, to help his initiative to result in action.”

The Open Society Foundation has a hyperfocus on protecting their own reputation. Reason being is their popularity is the only way this EU system of influence is able to work. OSI’s constant coordination with foundations and NGO groups lays the pressure on. The Foundation expects EU politicians to show obedience to OSI’s values. If they don’t they suffer social shaming and other consequences like ostracization.

A Netherlands anti-fa article outlines the reality of NGOs. Back in April 2013, they wrote “NGOs: Instruments of Imperialism.” In general, the article goes against the usual expectations of political stances. The author claims a small group of people control world order. According to them, this group maintains their elevation by using social institutions. These “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) fulfill their need to maintain ideological control. The author says worldwide institutions get backed by billions of dollars in subsidies. That places like Amnesty International and National Endowment for Democracy get collective benefits. This blog lays down the evident double standard. While NGOs go after dictatorships and defend human rights? They also have their own capitalist interests. Then this piece starts pulling back and looking at the big picture. They say NGOs have high political pull, influencing the direction of activist groups. That their people with ambition and ideas exchange it for a cushy NGO job that pays well.

This is all vindicated back in that Open Society strategy document. “The EU’s routes of influence are highly developed and opened to our input,” it says.

So what we have here in OSI is a powerful middle-man keeping a close eye on the EU. The Foundation rolls back NGO laws they don’t think are beneficial to them. While at the same time calling for the most favorable working conditions possible. Also, OSI wants direct cash funding for NGOs and civil society. They want safeguards against the rules for stopping the financing of terror organizations. Special exemptions to guarantee there’d be no blowback on civil society groups. But OSI doesn’t see themselves as NGOs. They position themselves as something with better access and larger capacity than them. Playing a long game of constant pressuring so they can shape the EU in their image over the course of years.

Let them tell you more about it themselves. OSI writes:

“We build public alliances through our leading role in the Human Rights and Democracy Network. Behind closed doors, we will use our high-level access to EU policy-makers to convene diplomats in the European External Action Service and national capitals to build longer-term strategies for rights, justice and governance objectives (building on the success of our Global Europe 2020 project).”

OSI priorities are fundamental rights and rule of law in the EU political mechanism. They try to ensure all member states uphold that, especially on immigration. OSI advocates for thorough and migrant friendly safeguard protocols. The group’s Justice Initiative programs aim toward influencing policy-makers. To that end, the EU encouraged member states to stop irregular migrant detentions. What drives OSI forward is their belief that open society is under attack in Europe. But they say that’s also an opportunity for them to widen their range of political engagement. A chance to recruit more political actors to their cause. The think tanks on one end analyze how the Open Society should advance their agenda. On the opposite side, they’re focusing on public communication refinement.

Over here on page 8 is where Soros and OSI are willing to play dirty. OSI saw 2014’s EU Parliament elections as a battleground for European liberal politics. They worried the angry public would engage in protest voting. Which in turn would lead to more “xenophobic” candidates winning their elections. The Foundation outlined plans to try and avert that doomsday scenario. Objectives involved reducing the vote for anti-EU candidates by working with local groups. Of course, OSI made countering racist claims one of their goals. But they took that aim and went to a higher mark. They wanted candidates to pledge they’d not wander into racist dialogue when campaigning.

The next one deserves quoting. “Develop new ideas, concepts, and memes” to connect with the public. As they were trying to push an influence on this election. “Run a two-level strategy to reduce the number of opponents of the open society who get elected,” it says.

So OSI leads the Human Rights and Democracy Network which coordinates NGOs. They’re making alliances with EU officials. Like the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Moreover engaging with officials in the European External Action Service and European Commission.

Next, we’re going to look at a (PDF) full of special projects. These are grants dedicated to OSI influencing the 2014 EU elections.

“The European Parliamentary elections in May 2014 present a crucial opportunity for citizens and civil society actors to help influence and shape the agenda of the European Union in the EU’s legislative period 2015–2019. OSIFE identified three main aims: 1) to support projects that amplify the voice and demands of constituencies that are far from the centers of power, 2) to fight all types of hate speech, and 3) to mobilize voters to take part in this rare political moment of transnational democracy.”

21 pages of organizations with projects in particular countries. All sharing the same goals as OSI. (shout out to Hope not Hate, who shows up on the last page with their $93,740.00 project). But one, in particular, stood out to me because it involved a media outlet.

EUObserver discloses their grant from the Open Society Foundation, yet they aren’t exactly clear as to what it was for:

— — $130,992 for 128 articles between February and May 2014: The EUObserver publication became a springboard for one of the Open Society’s projects. This initial grant entailed making news reports to “foster debate.” Creating a media campaign focused on open society values being at stake in the 2014 EU elections. They used loaded topics like “the rise of hate speech by Europe’s far right.” Coupled with reports depicting mainstream politicians guilty of “intolerant rhetoric.” EUObserver hired journalists with the cash. Then they’d send off to election campaign events and do interviews. These “high-level op-eds” they made got done in 16 different countries. EUObserver’s “go local” narrative shifted the discussion focus to things happening cross-borders.

But that wasn’t enough.

— — $29,353 for 32 MORE articles in June 2014: This was an extra month of extension on top of the previous grant. It let the project use “journalistic accounts” of the election and make forecasts. There was an underlying narrative at work in this arrangement. A specific focus on asking why Member states voted in a particular way. Then their experts analyzed if “anti-immigrant parties” were a coherent EU Parliament group.

— — $75,000 from January 2015 to August 2016: Not specified if OSI and EUObserver went through on this grant proposal. The purpose of it was for EUObserver to do long-term national EU-level coverage. The grant wanted “network of independent journalists in EU capitals” to get the local vibe. Get a sense of how the public feels about top government decisions. Escape from the routine of having every reporter in Brussels for policy-making stories. This network was going to coordinate with each other on stories to “crossed borders.” The effort intended to “help the public hold EU leaders to account.”

Remember what Glenn Beck said about controlling the airwaves? There it is. Right there. Did any of it work? Even back then? Hell no.

HopeNotHate even kept track (PDF) of far-right populists election votes that year. The Open Society is hyper-vigilant about that sort of thing. They definitely love their lists, though (American Soros groups taking a hint?).

Open Society took the elections that year pretty hard. A paper of theirs in 2014 (PDF) focused on the implications of “xenophobic” populist parties in European Parliament. This author at OSI worried that these populist neanderthal invaders would manipulate Parliament. The paper projects they’d fragment the mainstream right over time with “xenophobic” pressure. They’d express specified worries about the directions of issues like migration. The paper says people would introduce “extremist rhetoric.” Justifying it on the grounds of defending national identity and protection of culture. OSI paints it like a bad thing. According to the paper, there was a total of 114 “xenophobic populist” MEPs out of the 751. To their credit, the paper actually mentions why they think the populists did well. They conclude it wasn’t based on economic situations. Their easy answer is mainstream parties bandwagon off the protests against EU/migration. But later they realize people are losing trust in European democracy’s representative power. That the institutions in place don’t represent the public anymore.

Together that feeds the erosion of cultural identity and the loss of traditionalism.

This paper states the Lisbon Treaty grants further powers to populist MEPs. More opportunities to block EU legislation and with matters of funding and resolution. They’re in more of a position to put political pressure on governments as a result. The report states populist MEPs use Parliament as a source of personal funds and as a soapbox. Their “xenophobic and anti-elite” speeches get uploaded to YouTube. While parliament opponents might not bother listening, the populist’s message reaches the public. The paper states this widespread discourse is eroding what civil society stands for. In response, the two biggest mainstream groups joined forces to take charge. The European People’s Party and the Socialists & Democrats entered a “grand coalition political agreement” with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

So was the Open Society. They were trying to make heads or tails of what was what too.

THERE’S A WHOLE “RELIABLE ALLIES IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2014–2019)” PDF THAT GOES INTO MEGA DETAIL.  177 pages. Made by a group called the Kumquat Consult. Which happens to have BOTH the Open Society AND several governing bodies of the E.U. as clients.

It lists email addresses, physical mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and TWITTER ACCOUNTS. They do background checks and explore a member’s career history before taking office. Plus, their particular political interests and other group involvements they might have elsewhere. Where applicable this catalog describes members with negative traits. They take note when someone’s personal beliefs or belonging might make it hard to work with them. It’s one thing to explore a Parliament member’s general political leanings. That’s innocuous. But it crosses lines with meticulous details that insinuate targeted manipulation. Open Society was trying to re-consolidate their relationships with Parliament.

The best way to show this is going over people from both sides. First from the perspective of actions taken by Open Society onto EU officials. The other perspective being vice versa.


Dr. Costanza Hermanin’s specializations relate back to Defend Europe’s issues in particular. Her Open Society European Policy Institute work (PDF) focuses on Equality, Migration, and Italy. So we get all the main issues at hand with Defend Europe in one place. But that’s not all our friend Costanza does. She’s a special adviser to Italy’s under-secretary for Justice, has a nice cozy spot in the Huffington Post to write articles whenever they wish, and has a working relationship with nearly all the NGOs involved in migrant rescues in the Mediterranean. Her plans include shipping migrants off from Italy to the rest of Europe. OSEPI state outright they wanted to influence the next Italian EU president’s agenda. Costanza herself had a series of discussions with NGO groups and EU officials. Done with the intention of influencing these sorts of political guidelines (PDF).

Our dear Costanza is only one person of many in this sort of position of leverage and influence.

On the other side (PDF).

Federica Mogherini (Italy, Party of European Socialists) is the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Policy. Also worth noting she first joined the Italian Communist Party as a young woman. She laid out a vision to reshape the External Action Service in her appointment hearing. It consists of giving EU member states a common direction in the next five years. Institutions coordinating themselves and their work to better efficiency.

What does the External Action Service do?

EEAS is in charge of EU diplomatic missions, intelligence, and crisis management structures. They assist the High Representative in conducting Common Foreign and Security Policy. Which is the EU foreign policy in matters of defense diplomacy, security, and actions. They support his/her capacities as President of the Foreign Affairs Council and Vice-President of the European Commission. EEAS does not propose or put in place policy on their own behalf. Instead, they prepare acts adopted by the High Representative, the European Commission or the Council.

According to the briefing, Federica has a keen interest in civil society and NGOs. She sees their expertise as valuable.

One facet of the External Action Service plays a key role in the Defend Europe situation. Keep in mind. The Open Society wanted to go all the way with “enforcement of debating procedure.” Their outlined plan involves controlling what’s focused on in public discourse. OSF hoped long-term to push new anti-hate speech laws utilizing cross-party political “intergroups.”

The East Stratcom Task Force was created in June 2015 with three main objectives in mind: make communication effective and promote EU policies, strength the media environment, and lastly, word for word “improve EU capacity to forecast, address and respond to disinformation activities by external actors.” They further explain the Task Force’s focus is creating “a positive EU narrative” and analyze disinformation trends by “myth-busting” what they call disinformation narratives.

This effort intends to stop the Russians (who had kicked Soros out the same year this Task Force formed). The EU believed they were engaging in disinformation campaigns. What the Task Force does is sort out “fake news” from what they think is real. In December 2016 this East Stratcom Task Force decided on two separate occasions that “NGOs are smuggling migrants into Europe ‘on an industrial scale’ as evidenced by video footage” was fake news. On the 13th (PDF) and again on the 20th (PDF).

They throw in this disclaimer in their reports:

“****DISCLAIMER: The Disinformation Review is a compilation of reports received from members of the EEAS East Stratcom mythbusting network, which comprises of over 400 experts, journalists, officials, NGOs and Think Tanks in over 30 countries.”

Another (PDF) document lists Twitter accounts OSI thought were “Key Pro-Russian Opinion Formers.” Which goes back to the whole keeping a tight grip on public perception aspect.

It’s as simple as narrowing things down to a single thread. Then following along to see how Soros’s narrative manipulation plays itself out.

For this, we’re going to look at something called The Rome Charter. It’s sponsored and supported by Soros’s Open Society Foundation (because of course). What the Charter is about is best described in this English version PDF they’ve got. They wanted international journalist associations to be more fact-based when reporting migration issues. The Rome Charter tries to be a code of conduct on the subject of immigration. This was adopted by the National Council of the Journalists’ Professional Association and the Italian National Press Federation.

To clarify: they made the original version of this document (PDF) back in March and April 2011. It goes over things like: covering migration for current affairs news, interviewing asylum-seekers/refugees/trafficking victims/migrants, reporting on the political and public debate, reporting on data/statistics and on opinion polls, local information sources and the role of foreign journalists, and the need to focus on specific minority groups.

There’s a whole page called the “Diversity Checklist.” They added it so journalists can be more culturally sensitive as to what they are reporting about. The English “guidebook” has this glossary of definitions to use for migrants. The original Italian document itself is also very particular about terminology usage. There’s an important distinction between terminologies. Economic migrants leave their country to seek employment elsewhere. Refugees flee their country out of necessity to escape chaos and destructive wars. Two situations with key variations. The Charter has a very subtle shaping with what’s considered appropriate and what is not. It’s these sorts of slight nuances that make a huge difference in journalism. To see that aspect manipulated is actually very troubling.

But then the SUGGESTED SOURCES this Charter suggests journalists use? There’s a common thread with some of their suggestions.

“What we propose here is a list of sources broken down by sectors where journalists and information providers can find up-to-date information and information migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and minorities,” it says at the top of section 4.

Well, the biggest suggestion that stood out to me first was Amnesty International. Their head honcho director at the time, Steve Hawkins, got a big two-year grant from the Open Society Foundation back in June 2014. These are the folks that this Charter wants journalists to rely on to be unbiased. is the “Association for legal studies on immigration, essential for the updating of laws, decrees, judgments, circulars and implementing regulations,” according to the Roma Charter. But if you check on their website? You’ll see Open Society Foundations is a backer of them, right there at the bottom of the page.

Cospe is an NGO working on Italian and global initiatives for diversity/rights and equal opportunities for migrants and provides information on racism in Italy and Europe. Says the Rome Charter recommendation sheet. But what does the leaked list of European Elections 2014 projects for the Open Society Initiative say? Oh, it says that same COSPE organization was getting a $46,090 grant for addressing “the issue of insufficient political participation of EU citizens residing in Italy and aims to stimulate their active engagement in the political and public life by mobilizing them to register and vote in the 2014 European Parliament election.”

It’s a conflict of interest.

Allow me to reiterate on this. The Charter wants journalists to use *these* organizations when talking about immigration. It’s their best suggestion, hoping reporters buy into this appeal to authority cop-out.

21luglio is a non-profit site dedicated to stopping intolerance and discrimination, says the Rome Charter description. “Open Society Justice Initiatives” is on 21luglio’s partner page list. On top of THAT, you can see the Open Society Foundations logo pretty big on the page if you scroll down. Elsewhere, this Charter cites the blog as reputable for migration coverage. They name journalist Gabriele Del Grande as the one behind the site. Elsewhere, on Open Society Foundations own site, you can see a feature article they did back in October 2014 with that same Gabriele Del Grande. Right at the bottom of the page. “The Open Society Foundations have previously supported director Gabriele Del Grande and his blog Fortress Europe.” A Buon Diritto is a Soros backed operation according to their 2014 grant listings (PDF). So the Rome Charter’s suggestion of it as a trustworthy source is laughable.

It’s worthwhile to paint a picture of what Soros’s interests are in recent years. With that in mind, the best place to look is social media. The @GeorgeSoros Twitter account consists of OSF articles and other related writings. Many by George himself, but some from others that share his interests. All organized here, for further reading.

The 2012/2013 era shows us Soros’s interests in the European Union back then. He viewed it as an avoidable crisis that he can fix. He claimed government officials had an ethnic profiling status quo working against minorities. George warned the public that xenophobia loomed on the horizon. He started off (and ended) 2014 pretty big on Ukraine. Soros tried to use the EU as an example of open society “done right” for Ukraine to learn from. By summer his attention shifted to EU’s migration policies. He wanted to change the conversation people were having about that subject (“think of the children!”). Highlighting things like 200,000 kids in Greece weren’t citizens because they have migrant parents. In an interview he did in November, George went for the “at least the EU is better than Russia” strategy. Soros was in his 80s at this point. But he was ready to kick his Open Society world domination plan into overdrive. In 2015 Soros was holding up Croatia as an example for the rest of the EU to follow when it came to migration response. This was when he started applying the teachings of Karl Popper to his work here. Soros said country’s governments should connect to their people using “emotional intelligence.” Their perception of reality as a basis, rather than all possible facts. George promoted social cohesion as being necessary to appease the public. Remember how in 2014 Soros wanted to make migrant children citizens? That’s relevant here. As “social cohesion” means demanding cooperation between migrant and long-standing European families. They must get along and play nice. No matter what. An article on the OSF website tries to hammer that notion in further. They report on a multicultural neighborhood getting along “just fine” despite “populist rhetoric.” Soros said being “Islamophobic” went against European values. That it went against their “legacy” to turn away those in need of safety. The narrative being refugees were supposedly a part of Europe itself. He thought the EU needed to get their reception centers in better shape. George suggested they adopt a common asylum policy. In the first few months of 2016, Soros was all about Slovenia. He continued his technique of using individual countries for the rest of the EU to follow. George mentioned Canada’s private sponsorship program to create a financial appeal for refugees. George took Brexit harder than most. He thought UK’s exit from the EU meant the Union’s decline was now inevitable. This stalled his efforts urging the EU deal with the refugee situation collectively. Instead of on an individual country by country basis. By 2017 it all comes together. Soros thinks his Open Society is under attack. In George’s eyes, the migrant situation intertwines with the fate of the entire EU. Even financially.

So let’s take a look at current events and let me show you what this situation looks like, with this NEW lens you have.


In late September 2017, Hungary’s right-wing Fidesz party in Hungary promised to come forward with Soros’s plans to fill the E.U. with cheap migrant labor. They even request PM Viktor Orban to probe the E.U. on it after their ruling on imposing forced migration.

For this to make sense, we need to walk backward with this timeline of events. On September 6th, 2017 the European Court of Justice ruled that Hungary and Slovakia MUST accept the EU decision to relocate refugees from Greece and Italy, and accept them into their borders.

Ska Keller (Greens, DE) said:

“Now that the ECJ has dismissed the actions of Hungary and Slovakia against the redistribution of refugees, there is no excuse. Finally, those member states which have so far boycotted redistribution must also deliver. Solidarity in the EU is not a one-way street. Government leaders such as Viktor Orbán cannot demand more money for border protection, while blocking the reception of refugees from Greece and Italy.”

Civil Liberties Committee Chair Claude Moraes (S&D, UK) said:

“Member States cannot dodge their responsibilities; today’s verdict has shown this. The Parliament has consistently called on Member States to quickly uphold their commitments, since the adoption of the relocation mechanism in 2015. Yet two years later, only 28 000 people out of the 160 000 have been relocated.”

This had been brewing for a few years. Back in September 2015, Hungary was experiencing a surge in immigration. PM Viktor Orban had said he didn’t want the country taking in too many Muslim migrants. There was a lot of tension at the time. Viktor warned people fleeing places like Syria that they shouldn’t come to Hungary. Police blocked groups of refugees outside a Budapest train station for a few days. It was at this same time this was all going on was when Viktor Orban was having Hungary build a border fence. This border fence would come into play a few weeks later according to a Guardian article. “Hungary’s treatment of refugees is shocking and unacceptable, says UN.” There was a clash with refugees on Hungary’s southern border. Border guards used pepper spray, tear gas, and water cannons on refugees trying to cross.

It ticked off the U.N. for sure.

Now the Open Society Foundation also kept a close eye on all that, releasing their own report at the end of that month downplaying the migration crisis angle as much as possible. “THERE IS NO MIGRATION CRISIS IN HUNGARY” was their first big bullet point. The title of the article though? “What You Need to Know About the Refugee Crisis in Hungary.” So it’s a conflicting message, right from the get-go. Open Society accused officials and media of xenophobia, mentions the 175 km long border fence and takes a jab at Hungary’s protective measures they’d taken against the migrant situation. They go on to try and justify replacement migration as necessary to fill in the gaps in fertility rates.

During the 2016 U.S. elections, Bill Clinton actually commented about it while on the campaign trail for Hillary. “Poland and Hungary, two countries that would not be free but for the United States and the long Cold War, have now decided this democracy is too much trouble,” Bill said on May 17th, 2016 at a campaign stop in New Jersey. “They want Putin-like leadership: Just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out.”

A few days later we’d see a response from Orban that tied the situation back to Soros. These comments came from Orban while he was speaking on Hungarian radio.

“[B]eyond the American campaign, the remarks made about Hungary and Poland… have a political dimension,” Mr. Orban said, accusing Mr. Clinton of repeating Soros-inspired campaign lines: “These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And [the number of] these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros.”

“And George Soros published his six points supporting the Muslim migration to Europe, in which he announced that at least one million Muslims should be allowed [into Europe] each year, that they must be provided a safe path and that Europe should be happy to get such a chance and shouldn’t be defending against it. He also said that it will cost a lot of money, which he’d loan.”

Back to today — Orban had told the EU that Hungary would decline their decision. In an official response letter, Viktor spent several paragraphs politely telling the EU to blow it out their ass. Voters agree with Orban’s stance, and the Fidesz party is high in the public opinion. They concluded by saying EU officials will carry out this plan because they all “eat from Soros’ hand”.

One Reply to “The Soros Saga”

  1. Mr Soros is active all over the world. All the pro-immigration organisations seem to have his funding. There is a famous group called GetUp in Australia that is always calling to take more “refugees” that we now know is funded by him.

    Made a lot of money from “Black Wednesday” which suggests the whole thing may have been insider trading from the start.

Leave a Reply