by Don Hank, Guest Contributor
One sign that Soros is desperately flailing about is that he uses the old tried-and-failed tactic of smearing the anti-EU parties and their perceived allies the Russians. Let’s look at this part of the interview:
SOROS: […deletia…] The euro crisis is no longer a financial crisis. It’s turning into political crisis and you’re going to see in the elections and Putin —
ZAKARIA: Explain what that means. It’s going to be — you’re going to see it in the elections because you’re going to see the rise of nationalist anti-European forces?
SOROS: Yes, and interestingly, they are supported by Russia and pro-Russian. So Russia has emerged –juh as an alternative to the European Union. Putin has sort of come out of the closet in Ukraine. With their ideology that is nationalist, [garbled] be some ethic nationalism, you could call it Russism.
Here we see two subterfuges all in one short paragraph. Firstly, Soros says Russia has “come out of the closet” as a nationalist in Ukraine. This is not true. Putin always put his own people first. Our presidents also at least pretend to do this. (And as Pat Buchanan recently pointed out, what Russia did with Crimea is perfectly analogous to what the US did in Texas, militarily defeating a country to protect its citizens residing there and then annexing the part containing the ethnic Americans. Globalists don’t do this. They have no allegiance to any “people”).
Secondly, he makes it seem as if there is a new –ism in the world, Russism. How could a knowledgeable geopolitical analyst know so little about Russian history as to think Putin’s motivation is something novel? As early as the 1800s there was a major political dichotomy in Russian politics and society, between the Russophiles (that’s the word you were searching for,Mr. Soros) and the Europhiles. (This is evidenced in Turgenev’s novella “Nest of Noble Folk” and Tolstoy’s War and Peace (where Pierre, the protagonist, starts out as an admirer of Bonaparte but later, seeing the latter’s cruelty to the Russians, plots to kill him). Now, while this dichotomy later became secondary to that of communism vs. conservatism, the Russophilic nature of Soviet leaders was always visible in their policies. (For example, non-traditional sexual lifestyles running counter to Christian orthodoxy, such as are promoted in the West today, were suppressed in the Soviet Union). A notable exception was the Western leaning (Europhilic) Gorbachev. Thus, the descriptor Russism is redundant.
Both Zakaria and Soros further smear the anti-EU parties by suggesting that they are fascist. After coining the redundant neologism “russism,” Soros says: “It’s a new word to describe it because I don’t want to call it Nazi because it is very similar to what you had in the end of warfare and fascism, you know..” [my highlighting]
Let me first say that George Soros or anyone else who supports the EU has no moral authority to call anyone else a Nazi. The corporatism (crony capitalism) pervading Western economies is a salient feature of fascism.
The founding of the EU had its origins in Hitler’s Germany. Walter Funk, Hitler’s second Minister of the Economy, first coined the name European Community (Europäische Gemeinschaft), the name given to the third metamorphosis of the European Project, and outlined a plan for such a community. (These metamorphoses were: 1. European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), est. 1951 > 2. European Economic Community (EEC), est. 1957 > 3. European Community (translation of name coined by Funk) and 4. European Union, both established simultaneously in 1993). Funk also outlined a plan for the configuration of such a community, which is strangely similar to that of today’s EU.
Further, the corporate preparations for WW II were attributable mostly to IG Farben IndustrieAG, one of the biggest financiers of Hitler’s military adventures. A 1940 document issued by IGFarben outlines the plan for that agglomerate to take over European chemical manufacturing, a plan including a common currency and a European court.
Further, a large number of the EU’s founders were “former” Nazis. Walter Hallstein was a law professor under Hitler who wrote the racist “Blood and Honor” law, which, among other things, prohibited marriage between Jews and German nationals. I am sure you’d expect this Jew baiting racist to have been sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials, right?
Not really. In 1958, this loathsome creature was chosen as the first president of the European Commission (part of the EEC), a body designed to rule Europe beyond democratic control. It exists unchanged in its undemocratic (unelected) structure under the EU. Europe had come full circle, as detailed in Rodney Atkinson’s book Europe’s Full Circle.
Perhaps it is not surprising then that Transparency International worries about a “corruption risk” in the EU, where bribery seems to be a problem.
The interview with Zakaria discloses not only Soros’ expectations that the EU is on its way out but also another bombshell about Soros and his role in the Ukraine disturbances.
You see, Soros carries within himself the seeds of his own downfall, namely, an ebullient pride in his achievements, which are not particularly savory to those of us beneath the rank of multibillionaire. This propensity gives rise to gaffes, like his confession in a 60 Minutes interview that he helped the Nazis confiscate the possessions of Jews in Hungary, and the fact that he considered this one of the most exhilarating experiences of his life. I saw the interviewvideo while it lasted, but unfortunately, it seems to have been scrubbed from the web. A billiondollars buys you a lot of scrubbing. Here is a scrap of it.
An e-cquaintance of mine, who knows Soros personally, reminded me that Soros doesn’t reallycare about anything but making money so the failure of the EU is irrelevant to him. However,Soros’ interview with Zakaria and his book clearly show that it is not money but rather powerthat fires Soros’ imagination. The billions are just a vehicle. Indeed, in his book, he waxes rhapsodic about the EU as the “embodiment of an open society – a voluntary association of equal states that surrendered part of their sovereignty for the common good.” The real tragedy of George Soros is that he fails to see the little guy at the bottom of the heap, dealing as he doesonly with the super rich and/or powerful. First of all, if he saw real people’s viewpoint, he would understand that the EU is voluntary only for the powerful and well connected, so it is not democratic. In order for Prime Minister Ted Heath to persuade the UK to join the EU precursor EEC, for instance, he lied telling them the UK would not lose sovereignty. Today’s Britons are increasingly aware that the people never surrendered their sovereignty. They were betrayed, a charge I hear over and over from my UK friends. Further, the states are not equal since only the core countries have to pay exorbitant taxes to the EU and must tolerate an intolerable immigration burden.
Soros, like all political globalists, is so intent upon seeing his dream succeed that he will use any tactic, including deceit, to achieve his goal.
But if the supranational elites need to use deceit to achieve it, then it is not democracy. It is an oligarchy. You might call it a “deceptocracy.”