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 NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete.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
๐งต THREAD: The history of Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODE PINK
Jodie Evans gets most of the attention as the co-founder of CODEPINK and Neville Singham's wife. But Medea Benjamin's history may be more interesting.
While creating the linked thread below, I dived into Medea Bejamin briefly - who had an interesting history of speaking to Chinese media.
She co-founded Global Exchange with her husband, Kevin Danaher, which goes on a number of "Reality Trips" to various closed countries - Cuba, Venezuela, among others.
If you've followed me long enough ... you know that's a big red flag. State-facilitated exchange trips are one of the most common "soft power" tools that countries have in exporting their ideology to others.
Benjamin, per SFGate, has been a career activist since her college years, spending much of her time overseas in Africa. The Wikipedia page says that she joined Students for a Democratic Society in college - if so, this makes her yet another homegrown career NGO-ist.
The prior thread mentioned briefly that she went to Cuba from 1979 to 1983 to work as a translator for their official Communist Party newspaper. She lauded their comparative social equality, describing it as "I died and went to heaven."
She got deported after writing an anti-government article, having overestimated Cuba's taste for freedom of speech.
"We are writing to formally address and correct the false and defamatory statements made in your recent social media posts regarding CODEPINK. These claimsโwhich falsely allege that our organization is funded by China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or any foreign government or entityโare entirely baseless and constitute libel."
So, I will share the facts without spin:
Per Wikipedia, CODEPINK is 25% funded by Neville Singham, who is living in Shanghai and got rich off spreading CCP propaganda, and is under investigation by Congress for FARA violations.
CODEPINK is running a campaign called "China is Not Our Enemy," which promotes pro-China messaging, including denial of the Uyghur genocide, an atrocity affirmed by the U.S. Department of State.
The founder of CODEPINK, Jodie Evans, is married to the aforementioned Neville Singham.
In fact, the Uyghur denialism goes so far that Jodie Evans said in a YouTube interview, that Uyghurs are terrorists trained in Yemen and Syria who bomb shopping centers.
Please share any more facts you have about CODEPINK below. Do not opine.
Here's another fact: CODEPINK offers group trips to China.
CODEPINK is on Friends of Socialist China page and has hosted book club discussions with Carlos Martinez, who is the co-founder of FoSC.
It wasn't hard to find who actually supported the bill. As we will see, they will have many of the same funders and backers.
Popular Democracy has the EIN of 453813436 and receives a lot of DAF money. It is associated with various Make the Road chapters - many of whom receive migration-associated federal grants.
๐งตTHREAD: "Fake MAGA," Foreign Ops & the Nick Fuentes Factor
This week on X has been chaotic, and every influencer I've talked to feels it.
A new report dropped, and it's making serious claims: that foreign propaganda accounts are masquerading as MAGA to hijack conservative spaces and even push people to turn on Trump himself.
The report goes beyond analyzing bots and foreign actors. It names names. And the New York post article buried the lede: it explicitly calls out Nick Fuentes and his network as central amplifiers.
Nick Fuentes is the third rail of MAGA X, and for good reason; to speak of him is to invite wrath and harassment. I could've left this volatile topic alone and I know I would've been better off for it.
But when I see what @SarahisCensored has endured - and the grace and courage she's shown - it's a reminder of 2 Timothy 1:7: "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind." ... how can I possibly stay silent?
Itโs time we break the taboo of calling out wolves in MAGA clothing, even the ones the bots prop up. I read the entire report. Now I'm going to walk you through what it really says.
And what we need to watch for. ๐
Patience as I assemble this thread in real time.
. @SarahIsCensored , a pregnant independent journalist, was the last major influencer to speak ill of Nick Fuentes. Her life has been made hell as a result. This is a small sampling of the harassment she has received:
@SarahisCensored Another sampling. The screenshots were so vulgar, I could not post them all.
I share them to show what it means to cross Nick Fuentes. And that if we are to clean our own house, we must be prepared to confront a great evil.
๐จ๐ณ๐งต THREAD: CHINESE STATE PROPAGANDA BEHIND U.S. STREET PROTESTS ๐ฅ๐จ๐ณ
This morning, we discussed how ANSWER Coalition, financed by Neville Singham, was behind yesterday's US protests.
Thanks to a breadcrumb from @labtechleigh , I found that ANSWER Coalition has an intimate relationship with Friends of Socialist China - which is a direct propaganda piece of the CCP.
This provides strong evidence that CCP is behind the pro-Iran protests we saw yesterday. Why are we permitting foreign entities to influence opinions on our soil? Can we send China the bill for the destruction they caused in the LA riots?
I'll be constructing this thread live, so patience is appreciated.
ANSWER Coalition does not like advertising its relationship with Friends of Socialist China on its website.
But Friends of Socialist China is happy to brag about its affiliations. First up, is Carlos Martinez - co-editor of Friends of Socialist China - he wrote a book supporting Maoism and ANSWER's Brian Becker was happy to endorse it.
Carlos Martinez has a bio on ANSWER as a frequent speaker for ANSWER-sponsored events, but it makes no mention of his Friends of Socialist China affiliation.
@labtechleigh In the prior thread, I showed how ANSWER was an initial signatory to a statement denying the Uyghur genocide. Click on the link ... and it takes you to Friends of Socialist China. ANSWER copied their wording verbatim.
Vince Boelter has an interesting property history in Pierson, Iowa. Separately, he bought a house in Green Isle, MN for $520,000 in 2023 and seems to have a couple other properties there. Unclear if the Minnesota properties were purchased with cash.
I've done quite a few real estate transactions, and this one makes me scratch my head big time. This looks like almost a way to launder the $99,900.
Let me explain:
Boetler buys property for $20,000 on 11/20/2020
Boetler creates contract to Person A on 6/7/2021 for $99,900 - quadruple the price. Usually this would represent some sort of seller financing. Typical terms are 25% down and high interest rates, with the expectation of finding a real mortgage.
Person A forfeits to Boetler on 9/11/2021. Usually this means payments were not made.
Boetler "assigns" to Person B on 7/8/2022 for 99,900. Probably the original seller financing deed, but I don't have an explanation for why he'd do it in this way.
Person B quit claims to Boelter on 1/17/2024. Again, I am not sure why unless they decided they didn't want to make payments anymore.
Boetler finally sells to Person C on 8/6/2024 for $60,000.