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 NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete.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
Let's test how AI responds when you bring up George Soros in the context of documented history. Spoiler: it gets cagey.
Here are three verifiable facts, with receipts:
1๏ธโฃ It was the Clinton Administration's stated SOP to align their foreign policy with Soros, comparing him to a country unto himself.
2๏ธโฃ Soros co-chaired the Central Europe and Eastern Europe committee for NED, and the founder of NED considered Soros a key partner for US intelligence operations in the post-CIA age.
3๏ธโฃ Open Society Foundations was one of the NGOs involved in drafting the failed Afghanistan constitution.
Next up: let's ask AI some questions and see how it tries to tiptoe around these facts.
Gemini, pt. 1: "There's no definitive evidence of a formal, official cooperation between the U.S. government and George Soros on foreign policy."
Gemini, pt. 2: "there's no definitive evidence to suggest that George Soros directly worked with US intelligence agencies or their NGOs."
This happened in the year 1984. How many "sponsorships" with American media outlets have happened since?
GPT confirms that FCC disclosure rules only kick in when money changes hands for actual broadcast time.
Sponsorships labeled as "training" or "exchanges" let mainstream media quietly take funding or perks without ever having to tell the public. cc:@EagleEdMartin
@EagleEdMartin I think I'm onto something here. That the NGO money laundering happens through "training" and isn't reported because of this FCC loophole.
๐จ ANNOUNCING NEW TOOL: NED NETWORK NAVIGATOR (BETA) ๐จ
๐ง AI-POWERED. CONGRESSIONALLY FUNDED. HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.
I just shipped a crawler-indexer that rips apart the National Endowment for Democracyโs flagship Journal of Democracy archive โ then stitches every author, NGO, and article summary into one laser-focused query interface. This is more than search; this is x-raying a decades-old influence machine at machine scale.
Hereโs what it does:
โ Link the Whole Web โ One click surfaces every author โ NGO โ article connection, exposing the revolving door between grant-hungry nonprofits, State-adjacent think tanks, and โindependentโ scholars.
โ Instant Context Summaries โ AI distills thousands of pages so you see the thesis, not the fluff. No more slogging through academic euphemisms.
โ Prefix Hunter Mode โ Type โcolor revโ and catch every variant (โcolor revolution,โ โcolor-coded revolutions,โ etc.) that editors bury in footnotes.
โ Role Detector โ Flags when an author quietly moonlights on an NGO board funded by NED dollars.
โ NGO Cross-Check โ Pull EIN links straight to ProPublica filings; follow the money in two clicks.
โ Source-First Design โ Every claim traces back to the PDF or muse.jhu.org page, so NED canโt cry โmisinformation.โ
Why this matters:
For 40 years NED has branded regime-change lobbying as โdemocracy promotion,โ funneling your tax money into overseas activists while scolding domestic populists as threats. Their own journal is the narrative factory โ academics launder talking points that later justify sanctions, censorship, or NATO expansions. By making the entire archive searchable, we finally turn the microscope back on the operatives who insist theyโre safeguarding freedom.
This is what happens when you weaponize code instead of platitudes.
๐ Dig in, map the network, and decide for yourself: [link in next post]
Open Society Foundation (OSF) gave grants to Al-Haq, a group designated as terrorist by Israel. Israel passed this intelligence onto the CIA, but the CIA claimed insufficient evidence for designating these groups as terrorists.
Today, we also learned that OSF also gave the International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI) grants. The IRI and NDI are subsidiaries of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a quasi-governmental NGO which works closely with the CIA.
Did Soros money influence the CIA's refusal to designate Al-Haq as a terrorist organization?
I cannot emphasize how serious it is that IRI and NDI accepted Soros money. These aren't normal NGOs. These are supposed to be "soft power" vehicles operating on the behalf of the United States government.
Of all the discoveries, this makes me the most angry. Soros may very well have compromised our national security in a direct way. cc: @elonmusk
Turns out, George Soros gave $1.7 million to the IRI and $1.5 million to the NDI... two D.C.-based "democracy promotion" fronts tied to the State Department and both subsidiaries of NED.
๐ Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, and Dan Sullivan all actively sit on the IRI board.
These groups were created to run on U.S. taxpayer dollars, not Soros money.
Why are either IRI or NDI taking his money? He's buying influence over both parties, and the GOP is letting him in the front door.
Hey @SenateGOP : why are you letting Soros fund your foreign ops machine?
Thanks to @bullfrog35 for spotting this.
In 22 CFR ยง 67.4, it says NED has a special responsibility to operate openly. @EagleEdMartin shouldn't it be disclosed that NED/IRI/NDI has taken money from a far left, regime change foundation?
@EagleEdMartin On their website, it says "NED raises limited private contributions from foundations, corporations and individuals to support some of its non-grant related activities." But the descriptions of the grants themselves seem to be very much grant related activity.
Ever wonder where George Soros is sending his money? ๐ I've extracted and published the public Open Society Foundations grant database in spreadsheet format. This is your chance to dig through the receipts. ๐๐งพ
๐บ๐ธ Want to follow the money? See who's getting funded, where it's going, and what it's paying for.