Today's systems of NGOs isn't accidental - it was laid out in a vision 30 years ago by none other than George Soros.
I joined @MikeBenzCyber on a livestream last night, where he was kind enough to walk us through the basics.
As my bio says, I am just a tool builder. I am not a historian or academic. The information in this thread is common knowledge for many. It wasn't for me.
I want to walk you through an essay which Mike pointed me to- a chilling essay written in 1993 by George Soros, "Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO"
The essay lays out a new mission for NATO after the cold war. NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete. Instead, it would proactively go out and shape other countries into "open societies." "[๐ต๐จ๐ป๐ถ'๐ ๐๐๐] ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐."
Soros re-defined peace and security not as absence of war, but in terms of how many countries are "open societies."
In other words, NATO's new mission: if a country doesn't adopt Western-style capitalism and liberalism, NATO should step in... politically, economically, and eventually, militarily.
๐ง What is an "Open Society?"
The term was coined by philosopher Karl Popper and expanded in this 1993 essay. Soros, of course, would go on to build a coalition of NGOs and interfere in the US Elections under his "Open Society Foundation" banner.
Here are the elements of an "Open Society" in theory:
๐นDemocracy
๐นFree markets
๐นCivil rights
๐นMinority protections
๐นTransparency
๐นA "global" rules-based order
In practice, Open Society means something very different. Let's go through the essay.
Translation:
You're an open society if you accept our interpretation of pluralism and Western values. Otherwise, we'll label you "closed," even if your people elect their leaders or protect cultural traditions. And this gives us pretext to justify military actions on you.
Translation: We pour aid into countries that remake themselves in Soros' image. And no amount of money is too much to accomplish that- because, again, we have redefined "peace" to mean "as many countries follow the Open Society model as possible."
And if aid fails, then military intervention is next.
Take a moment to think about this.
What do you think this means for anyone who is opposed to foreign aid?
They are agents of "closed societies."
They are a threat to national security.
Ergo...
They are a threat to democracy.
This point is perhaps the most ironic one. A "Democracy" according to George Soros is not decided by its own citizens. Instead, NATO's new mission is to impose their own ideology on others and build countries which agree with Soros.
Translation - if bribing a country with endless amount of foreign aid doesn't work to transform them from inside out, then NATO will intervene. And that's exactly what NATO did with Bosnia in 1994.
Translation: NATO's new job is not to defend member states, but to expand its presence eastward and actively shape the internal politics of neighboring states, especially the post-Soviet bloc.
This isn't a theoretical essay. Washington implemented the playbook.
๐๏ธ 1994: Partnership for Peace launched
๐๏ธ 1999: NATO admits Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic
๐๏ธ 2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria join
๐๏ธ 2008โ2022: Ukraine, Georgia seek NATO pathway
๐๏ธ 2023: Finland joins NATO, Sweden follows
Why did everyone go along with this model? Simple. Enormous amounts of money was involved. Here's a list who benefited:
๐งโ๐ผ NGO Networks (Open Society Foundations, USAID, NED)
โ More influence, more contracts, more justification for expansion
๐๏ธ Bureaucrats & Diplomats
โ Career advancement via โdemocracy-buildingโ missions
๐ฐ International Donors & Foundations
โ Steer reforms through grant-making power
๐ณ IMF & World Bank
โ Lend to reforming nations in exchange for austerity + influence
๐ข Private Equity & Multinationals
โ Buy up privatized industries on the cheap (telecoms, oil, infrastructure)
๐๏ธ Western-Aligned Politicians
โ Receive aid, praise, and protection... even if theyโre corrupt or undemocratic
๐ Post-Communist Oligarchs
โ Enrich themselves through Western-advised privatization
๐ฐ Journalists & Activists
โ Funded by Western grants, shielded from local accountability
๐งโ๐ซ Professors & Think Tanks
โ Get fellowships, scholarships, media access for pushing "open" values
๐ฑ Big Tech
โ Enter new markets post-liberalization (data access, censorship tools, ad revenue)
๐๏ธ Mainstream Media
โ Shape narratives, control legitimacy labels: โreformerโ vs โstrongmanโ
And if you dare to cut off that money spigot... in other words, if you practice any kind of populist principles or try and assert agency for your own nation:
FINAL NOTE:
Don't confuse George Soros's model of NATO promoting "open societies" with being anti-communist.
Soros didn't oppose the Soviet Union because it was communist.
He opposed it because it was nationalist. It resisted foreign influence and maintained centralized control over its own ideology and borders.
His vision of an "open society" blends left-wing radicalism (identity politics, anti-tradition, anti-sovereignty) with globalist structures (NGOs, Western institutions, and transnational finance).
The more you read his writings, the clearer it becomes that "Open Society" is a circular label for regimes that accept Soros-style politics.
Anyone who resists this framework is cast as an enemy of "democracy." And if you're MAGA, that means you.
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
. @PunchbowlNews would you like to comment on this business model I've reversed engineered of how you keep @LeaderJohnThune in line?
@PunchbowlNews @LeaderJohnThune Punchbowl, would you also like to comment on how virtually every major sponsor of yours has donated to John Thune for a total of 1.2 million?
@AndrewDesiderio , any comments?
@PunchbowlNews @LeaderJohnThune @AndrewDesiderio By the way ... the only people who are sponsoring me on this are my $3/month subscribers. I don't know any heavy hitter here who's been approached to go against SAVE America Act.
I'd been looking at PAC contributions when I should have been looking at the people who actually have daily access to the Capitol - the media. The true lobbyists.
Punchbowl News represents a whole lot of powerful industries and they are unflinching admirers of Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
John Thune is the "paid influencer ecosystem." ๐ merely exposed how that machinery works in the Senate.
Just look at the posts of @AndrewDesiderio , their senior Senate "correspondent." Almost every single one is about defeating the SAVE America Act and praising Thune.
Punchbowl isn't shy about where their money comes from. Founder Jack Sherman himself admitted that 90% of Punchbowl's revenue is from "corporate sponsorships." They made 10 million dollars in revenue their first year... what kind of "journalist" company pulls that off?
The podcast featuring them outright describes their business model as getting their money from "sponsorships bought by trade groups and companies looking to get their public affairs messaging in front of those making and influencing policy."
Punchbowl got in ethical hot water when they treated a whole bunch of lobbyists to luxury box seats at a NFL game.
If you want to know why SAVE America Act is being slow-walked...
Start with @PunchbowlNews .
. @AndrewDesiderio do you want to share which of your employer's clients are against the SAVE America Act, or should I figure it out myself?
Thune access timeline documented: Five distinct confirmed Punchbowl-Thune interactions between Sept. 2025 and March 2026, including two Fly Out Day appearances. Punchbowl's Feb. 26, 2026 piece declaring the "talking filibuster dead" was the key conventional wisdom-setting event, published before Trump's March 9 ultimatum, using Thune's framing and characterizing SAVE Act supporters as a caucus "tearing itself apart."
๐ฐ๏ธ New Article: Building an OSINT Pipeline to Cut Through the Iranian Conflict Noise.
SPOILER ALERT: We're winning.
I just published a long-form analysis on the Iran conflict and the strategic dynamics around it. Sorry for the Substack-only publication; the article itself was far too long and complex in formatting to publish with ๐ tooling. (Feedback to the ๐ team - if you can just make full Markdown capability, I would be thrilled.)
Before anything else: I'm only a civilian data analyst, not a military officer or intelligence professional. This piece is the result of two weeks of intensive work where I did something unusual.... I built and experimented with an AI-assisted OSINT synthesis pipeline using military doctrine, think tank research, and public reporting.
Part of the goal was to produce something useful for readers.
But honestly, the bigger goal was education for myself, forcing a structured process to sort signal from noise in an information environment that's chaotic right now.
The pipeline pulls from sources like CSIS, ISW, CEPA, ISIS nuclear reporting, CENTCOM and IDF briefings, plus open-source economic and energy data. Where I step beyond what those sources explicitly state, I mark it clearly as [ASSESSED] and try to show the reasoning.
This article is the first full output of that process.
If you have expertise in:
๐น air campaign planning
๐น nuclear nonproliferation
๐น Middle East security policy
๐น energy markets
๐น OSINT methodology
I would genuinely welcome corrections, critiques, or improvements. The entire point is to make the analytical process more rigorous over time.
The pipeline itself will keep evolving. Bring on the rotten tomatoes.
๐งตWOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: Meet David Pascoe, candidate for SC Attorney General. He's running as a Republican. But is he actually a Democrat?
Joe Biden is in South Carolina today.
Which makes this the perfect moment to introduce you to David Pascoe, candidate for SC Attorney General, running as a Republican, and what he said about Joe Biden in January 2020:
"He is the most decent man I have ever met in American politics. Joe has been a role model of mine for many years. He is someone my sons look up to. Joe is the first and only candidate I have ever endorsed for public office."
That's not only a Democrat who voted for Biden. That's a Democrat who hosted Biden's campaign fundraiser at his own annual oyster roast, endorsed him for president, and was Biden's frontrunner to become US Attorney for South Carolina.
David Pascoe spent 20+ years as an elected Democrat, 6 consecutive terms as SC First Circuit Solicitor. He pushed DEI-style racial quota systems for SC judges as recently as December 2023. Six months before his "conversion," he endorsed a Democratic state rep who voted against banning gender procedures on minors.
And here are the receipts. ๐
As always, patience as I pull together this thread.
David Pascoe spent 20+ years as an elected Democrat, 6 consecutive terms as SC First Circuit Solicitor. On April 10, 2025, he switched to the GOP. SC Dem Chair Christale Spain says he "has been trying to find a lane to run for higher office."
Pascoe switched parties in April 2025.
Pascoe launched his AG campaign in August 2025.
That's 4 months, in a state where no Democrat has won a statewide race since 2006.
You do the math.
If you're a subscriber, enter your oppo research request below! I haven't scaled it out yet, so can only do about 3 a day. It also helps if you pair a name with a focus (e.g., investigate connections to so-and-so entity)