By Drieu Godefridi
When you fund political parties or candidates, whether in the US or Europe, there are rules to follow: the amount of financing, publicity, registration, and countless legal constraints. When you lobby politicians on behalf of corporations or economic sectors, there are also rules to follow. When you promote ideas, however, there are virtually no limits to what you can do; you can spend as much money as you want, create hundreds of NGOs, pay as many people as much as you can, send amicus curiae to the supreme courts, anything: the sky is the limit.
Floating around in this sky is the American, born in Hungary, George Soros, who for decades has been promoting his personal worldview, influenced by Karl Popper, author of The Open Society and Its Enemies. The book, written as Hitler was bombing Europe, was a defence of political freedom and a condemnation of totalitarian regimes.
Popper considered that only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and leadership change without the need for revolution, bloodshed and coups d’états. “I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes”, elaborated Soros on December 30, 2016, “those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.”
Since 1979, Mr Soros has given over $32 billion to fund the Open Society Foundations, which have a presence in more than 100 countries. Mr Soros’s funding has, in his own words, “supported individuals and organizations across the globe fighting for freedom of expression, transparency, accountable government, and societies that promote justice and equality.”. He recently announced that he is injecting a further $18 billion into his empire of ideas.
This funding ensures Soros’s position as the single biggest “ideas lobbyist” in the history of mankind. It is one thing to have a corporation with a turnover of $100 billion dollars that spends $50 million on lobbying. It is quite another to create a vast array of foundations, associations and NGOs whose only purpose is to spend tens of billions on promoting certain notions. Soros is the unrivalled titan of today’s world of ideas. But what ideas?
Let us consider three instances of Mr Soros’s current involvement in Europe: Hungary, the European Parliament and finally the European Court of Human Rights.
Migration in Europe is one of the few subjects on which Mr. Soros has spoken personally and repeatedly. In a text published on his website September 26, 2015, Soros proposed a “comprehensive plan” for refugees in Europe. To begin with, “the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future,” he wrote. Why a million? Mr Soros does not elaborate. “At least a million” he wrote (It is noteworthy that the million became “between 300,000 and 500,000 per year” in another paper, April 9, 2016 ; then “300,000 refugees annually” in a paper dated September 12, 2016.
“Adequate financing is critical, said Soros in the September 2015 paper. The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs — and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.” In Soros’ worldview, national borders are a mere “obstacle” to be gotten rid of. What is important, to Soros, is to take in migrants, be they Muslim migrants, economic migrants, political migrants, whatever. To Soros, migration is a purely moral question.
In Hungary, Soros has funded dozens of social vehicles to denounce and fight the policies of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, such as his opposition of mandatory migrant resettlement quotas imposed by the EU. Orbán has publicly warned the Hungarian people about the influence of Soros’s Open Society foundations: “Large-bodied predators are swimming here in the waters. This is the transborder empire of George Soros, with tons of money and international heavy artillery,” Orbán recently said. “It is causing trouble (…) they are trying secretly and with foreign money to influence Hungarian politics.”
Mr Orbán’s party was democratically elected, and then re-elected, by the Hungarian people in free and fair elections, the legitimacy of which have never been contested. (Next elections: April 2018; again, Orbán is the clear favorite). The Hungarian people, already occupied for several hundred years by the Ottoman Empire, does not want to be overwhelmed again by newcomers from the Third-World — and certainly not thanks to the “quotas” imposed by Brussels and Berlin. Orbán is actually the guardian of Hungarian democracy whereas it is Soros who despise the voice of the people.
In a document that was inadvertently released by a consultant, the OS listed the names of 226 members of the European Parliament who are “reliable allies”, out of a total of 751 MEPs. The document in question lists every “ally” of Mr Soros, along with a short biography. Take, for example, former Belgian Prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, one of the most vocal and talented MEPs, and chairman of the liberal faction. “Interested in the rule of law”, states the OSF document; “European integration; the European Neighbourhood and in particular Russia; fundamental rights; post-crisis economics; financial regulations; and EU institutional matters.” Also, “Fiercely progressive, pro-European and federalist, but will focus exclusively on the most politically important files.” All of which is perfectly accurate. What, however, does “reliable ally” mean? Ally to do what? What, also, is required to be a “reliable ally” of the OSF in the EU Parliament? When asked, the Open Society answered: “We do not fund MEPs.” (Anna Kowalczyk, “Regional Head of Communications, @opensociety”, 15 January 2018). If the OSF does not fund Mars, does that mean Mars is a reliable ally?
This bureaucratese should come as no surprise from someone who has financed organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group officially considered a terrorist organization by both Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some of the Emirates. We know that from two official documents, the first from the Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE). It is titled, “LIST OF EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 2014 PROJECTS”. The other is titled, “Open Society Initiative for Europe: Our Grantees,” 2015.
In these two lists of grantees, there are recipients such as the CCIF, Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France, “Fighting political islamophobia”. Bernard Godard, former “Monsieur Islam” of the French Ministry of the Interior, agreed with renowned intellectual Gilles Kepel that this association “gravitates in the orbit of the Muslim Brotherhood”.
Another recipient of Mr. Soros’s generosity is the CCIB — Collectif contre l’islamophobie en Belgique — which has the same purpose, in Belgium. The OSF also donates to INSSAN in Germany, located at the same address as the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Muslimische Jugend in Deutschland”, a place that was bought by Muslim Brotherhood’s Ibrahim El-Zayat on behalf of the Europe Trust, which is the financial wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. According to an investigation by “The Wall Street Journal” journalist’s Ian Johnson, INSSAN has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The next recipient of Mr. Soros is the Ibn Rushd Educational Association in Sweden, part of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sweden, according to the Swedish government itself (see page 11).
The next OSF recipient is the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), in Belgium, which has “strong ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood and is dominated by MB organizations and individuals”. According to Eli Hazan, foreign relations director for the ruling Likud party in Israel, Financial Times, January 14, 2018, Soros has also financed Palestinian groups shielding terrorists .
EU Court of Human Rights
The migration chaos in Europe has two sources: one is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with her decision to let 1.5 million. Muslim refugees enter Germany throughout 2015 and 2016. The other source is structural, and does not depend on the whim of a particular politician; and that is the HIRSI ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
This ruling, named after the court case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others vs. Italy (2012), states that the European states have the legal obligation to rescue migrants wherever they find them in the Mediterranean Sea and ferry them to European shores, so that these people can claim the status of refugee. When the Italian Navy intercepted illegal migrants and sent them back to Libya, not only did the ECHR condemn Italy for this “breach of human rights”; the Italians had to pay 15,000 euros to each of these illegal migrants due to “moral damage” — exactly the same amount, notably, that Soros recommended in the OSF paper on migration quoted above. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants attempt this journey, often with the help of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), whose activists wait for boats to appear at sea, just off the Libyan coast. In 2015, 5,000 unintercepted people died at sea. All of which has been described by FRONTEX, European Border and Coast Guard agency (see page 32).
What is the link between Hirsi and Soros?
The Hirsi ruling relies heavily on the legal reasoning of “amicus curiae”: “Written observations were (…) received, writes the European Court, from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Human Rights Watch, the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic, the AIRE Centre, Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights, acting collectively, which had been given leave to intervene by the President of the Chamber (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention).”
Human Rights Watch, the AIRE Centre — funded by the Soros-financed European Programme for Integration and Migration, EPIM) — Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights— are all financed by the OSF. These organisations are not merely referred to in passing; their reports are quoted at length by the European Court, as if they were a source of law. It is therefore appropriate to write that this dreadful HIRSI ruling, that has caused chaos in Europe, and the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean sea, is not only in line with the Soros “comprehensive plan” of “one million asylum-seekers annually” but that it has been actively promoted by the Open Society through a coterie of NGOs quoted at length in the unfortunate ruling of the European Court.
In Europe, the vast majority of the citizens appear opposed to the mass migration inflicted upon them by the European institutions through the Hirsi ruling, the system of mandatory quotas and countless other mechanisms. Across all 10 of the European countries, for instance, studied by “Chatham House”, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs, in February 2017, “an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed. Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.” In what sense of the word democracy can these democratic majorities be dismissed?
Funding islamists and fighting democracies, Soros is the anti-Popper par excellence, and one of the main problems of contemporary Europe.