Russo-Georgian Conflict Originates with Soros Subversion
George Soros, the currency speculator is one of the primary elements in subverting traditional societies in order that they better fit into a new world order. Soros backs on a world scale what might loosely be termed the contemporary version of the ‘New Left’. He brings down governments via subversion, moral rot and revolution through financial patronage, akin to what Jacob Schiff the New York banker did to Russia through the funding of revolutionary propaganda.1 However Soros’ revolutions are far more widespread than that of Schiff.
Soros has established a network of think tanks, lobbies and fronts to promote sundry causes, from feminism and abortion, to narcotics liberalisation and the stream of ‘velvet revolutions’ that have resulted in ‘regime change’ throughout the former Soviet bloc. 2
Soros declares George Bush to be a threat to world peace because of the gung ho gunboat diplomacy Bush directs towards ‘rogue states’. But Soros foments more fundamental discord and conflict through his patronage of subversion and revolution. It is significant that he is one of the chief financial backers of Obama’s presidential campaign, along with a mass of other plutocrats. Obama is a typical e.g. of how a ‘man of the people’, America’s equivalent to a System Leftist, is fronting for Big Money. 3
In 2003 Soros targeted Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze for overthrow. Soros’ aim is the destruction of Russia as a world power. Eliminating Russian influence and replacing it with new regimes hostile to Russia is his goal.
In 2003 Mark MacKinnon writing in the Canadian Globe & Mail succinctly described how Soros applied his revolutionary formulae to overthrowing Shevardnadze, writing of how Soros’ Open Society Institute,
“Sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer, Mr. Soros’s foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution.”4
The youthful activists are a living e.g. of how the Left has always served the interests of the Money power, whether Bolsheviks, Social Democratic liberals, or strident nihilists of the SDS variety. This was long ridiculed as “right-wing conspiracy theory” but now operates for all discerning people to see, even mainstream journalists.
Commenting on the “Velvet Revolution”5 that had just passed over Georgia, MacKinnon described the operations that went into play, following the same patterns as they had in other Soros targeted states6:
“The Liberty Institute that Mr. Bokeria helped found was instrumental in organizing the street protests that eventually forced Mr. Shevardnadze to sign his resignation papers. Mr. Bokeria says it was in Belgrade that he learned the value of seizing and holding the moral high ground, and how to make use of public pressure — tactics that proved so persuasive on the streets of Tbilisi after this month’s tainted parliamentary election.
“In Tbilisi, the Otpor link is seen as just one of several instances in which Mr. Soros gave the anti-Shevardnadze movement a considerable nudge: He also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for this week’s “velvet revolution,” and he reportedly gave financial support to a youth group that led the street protests.”
The useful idiots of the Left had done the work of a globalist money speculator, marching under self-proclaimed ‘high ideals’, again fulfilling Oswald Spengler’s political dictum that, to paraphrase, ‘there is not a left-wing movement, not even the communists, who do not operate in the interests dictated by Money…’7
The Georgian wannabe warlord of democracy and heroic fighter against Russian tyranny, Saakashvili, who went scuttling like a frightened rabbit when he ‘though he heard approaching Russian fighters’, began his political ascendancy as a Soros whore. MacKinnon states:
“[Soros] also has a warm relationship with Mr. Shevardnadze’s chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4. Last year, Mr. Soros personally presented Mr. Saakashvili with the foundation’s Open Society Award.
“’It’s generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who planned Shevardnadze’s overthrow,’ said Zaza Gachechiladze, editor-in-chief of The Georgian Messenger, an English-language daily based in the capital.
“In the eyes of Mr. Soros’s employees, it was all done in the name of building democracy. Laura Silber, a senior policy adviser at Open Society, said the foundation sponsored the exchange because ‘some of the experiences are very translatable’ between Georgia and Serbia. In Georgia’s current political climate, she said, ‘it looks more charged than it is’.”
“That’s not how Mr. Shevardnadze saw it, however.”
A lot of mischief has been done throughout history in the name of ‘building democracy’ as the Soros employees describe it. Communism was established in the name of ‘building democracy’, then, as we’ve seen, its Soviet version was subverted and pulled down when it went sour for the plutocrats. The same kind of ‘useful idiots’ who marched against Boer South Africa did so in the name of ‘building democracy’, the outcome of which was to replace an interventionist (nationalist) economic with one of globalisation and privatisation, in the name of ‘human rights’, which the ANC describes as the ‘correct Marxist-Leninist path’. In this instance the Oppenheimer empire played the role in South Africa now played by the Soros network throughout the world.8
The hapless Mr. Shevardnadze was well aware of the machinations against him:
“’George Soros is set against the President of Georgia’,” he said during a news conference in Tbilisi a week before his resignation — it was at least the third time during the protests that he had complained about Mr. Soros. He threatened to shut down Open Society’s Georgia offices, saying it was not Mr. Soros’s business ‘to get involved in the political processes.’”
MacKinnon describes the main opposition movements of the time and how Soros subsidized each:
“Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received money from both Open Society and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze’s downfall: Mr. Saakashvili’s National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze last April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking government corruption.
“All three have ties to Mr. Soros. According to Georgian press reports, Kmara received a $500,000 (U.S.) start-up grant in April, some of which may have been used during the three weeks of street protests when it bussed demonstrators in from the countryside and set up loudspeakers and a giant television screen amid the crowds surrounding the parliament building.
“Rustavi-2 got start-up money from Mr. Soros when it launched in 1995 and more funding a year ago when it began the anti-Shevardnadze newspaper 24 Hours.
“Observers say that Rustavi-2’s role during the protests is hard to overestimate. The channel began its campaign years ago when it produced a popular cartoon called Our Yard, in which the animated president was portrayed as a crooked double-dealer.”
Soros had originally sought to control Shevardnadze, having met him in the 1980s when Saakashvili was Soviet foreign minister. Even then Soros was setting up his Open Society Institute in Georgia. He soon turned his attentions to justice minister Saakashvili. In 2002 Shevardnadze made the first of his complaints against what he deemed Soros’ subversive activities. Soros responded that Shevardnadze could not be trusted to hold fair elections, and that he would mobilise his street lackeys, adding:
“This is what we did in Slovakia at the time of [Vladimir] Meciar, in Croatia at the time of [Franjo] Tudjman and in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic.”
In 2004 Richard Carlson, former diplomat, recently returned from visiting Georgia, wrote of the attention Saakashvili was getting from Soros and the funding of the ‘Rose Revolution’:
“Late last fall, Saakashvili led thousands of ‘spontaneous’ demonstrators, bussed in from around Tbilisi, brandishing flowers as they invaded the president’s palace. This was during the freezing Georgian winter when any roses not black and brittle had to be flown or trucked in, courtesy of the same bankroll that funded the fleet of rented buses for demonstrators: that of George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire and egotist. A former member of the Georgian Parliament said that in the three months before the ‘Rose Revolution,’ ‘from August through October, Soros spent $42 million ramping-up for the overthrow of Shevardnadze’”9
Despite the animosity between Bush and Soros, the dismemberment of Russia serves the interests of both the neo-cons backing Bush/McCain, and their plutocratic antagonists headed by Soros, backing Obama. Both rival power factions are suspicious of Russia, based on its prior record and the path of independence followed under Putin. After 1917 Russia held great promise for the plutocrats, but went sadly astray when Stalin kicked out Trotsky and pursued a path that was not in accord with globalism. Indeed it was Stalin who scuttled the plutocratic aim to establish the UNO as a de jure world government after World War II. It was Stalin who scuttled another internationalist scheme, the Baruch Plan,10 which would have internationalised atomic energy and in practise placed this under the control of the USA.11 The “Right”, befuddled by a misguided ideological dichotomy, pounded the war drums against the USSR during the “Cold War”, alongside the Trotskyites who had been co-opted by the CIA into the Congress for Cultural Freedom and who morphed into today’s neo-cons.12 An Establishment “insider’ historian Dr Carroll Quigley remarked in his magnum opus Tragedy & Hope that the plutocrats’ use of financial patronage as a control mechanism showed little sign of working with the post-Stalin leaders13. The plutocrats had succeeded with Yeltsin in a very brief recapture of Russia. Again Russia under Putin is the fly in the globalist ointment. All mainstream media commentary in regard to Russia should therefore be analysed accordingly.