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 NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete.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
Ugh. Mining the NED Journal of Democracy articles is sickening. Bunch of power-hungry petty tyrants.
Here's one example quote:
"Government by consent, respect for human rights, and support for the rule of law are the only things that can finally and securely protect our countries, our region, and the world against the threats of terrorism and of crises that compel outsiders to come and use military force on our shores."
Sounds noble; who could argue with "government by consent" or "rule of law"? Except this statement was used to justify the Iraq War which killed hundreds of thousands, destabilized an entire region, and left a power vacuum that fueled groups like ISIS.
From the same article:
NED was also utterly convinced that China would become a democracy after the Tiananmen Square incident and funded a bunch of NGOs to infiltrate.
๐งต THREAD: Congressman Shri Thanedar's conflict of interest
It's been floating around that Shri Thanedar left beagles to starve in a building when his company went bankrupt in 2010. But what's not mentioned is that his successor company, Avomeen Analytical Services, appears to be receiving federal money and got a massive influx of federal spending ever since he became Congressman in 2024 and continues to accelerate in 2025. @DOGE_GSA
Avomeen officially rebranded under Element Material Technology, Ann Arbor. A Google Search for the addresses show that they match up.
The Ann Arbor UEI (JKHYM6LMBFP7) received a boost in 2024/2025.
This week, DOGE shut down a foreign aid agency called Millenium Challenge Corporation.
Thanks to @awsalebadi for finding contracts. See his๐ for strange expenses from MCC, starting with a $746,293.66 for a Gender and Social Inclusion Director.
Millennium Challenge Corporation is heavily USGLC-linked, with a dedicated section on USGLC. They had a section dedicated to it, but it's been removed.
If you don't know what USGLC is - see my pinned thread.
The archive appears to list the people related to MCC. Let's look at the people in detail.
The CEO of MCC, Alice Albright, has hosted roundtables with USGLC. She hails from Citigroup and GAVI, both of which are represented on the USGLC board. The Gates Foundation has supported a conversation featuring her as well.
๐งตTHREAD: How Samantha Power gave USGLC power over USAID
(Thanks to @J_P1776 for the breadcrumb)
In 2022, USAID Administrator Samantha Power resurrected an old, mostly-forgotten advisory board, ACVFA (Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid) and gave it a new mission:
Bring America's top NGOs, business leaders, and global development experts directly into USAID's decision making.
In order to do so, she tapped her peers from the US Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC).
ACVFA pre-dates USAID, but did not have the influence it has now.
Until Power came on stage, ACVFA had met infrequently, their last meeting having been in 2019, and before that, 2017.
But Power's re-imagined ACVFA was to evolve it "to be not just an advisor to USAID, but a bridge linking the institution of USAID to nongovernmental organizations, to the private sector, to religious leaders, to civil society."
The board established in 2022 was praised as the "most diverse in the history of ACVFA" and its vision was to establish tighter partnerships - AKA bringing NGOs into the decision-making process.
Which party receives donations from both USGLC member companies and their employees?
Let's start with Land O'Lakes, which was a surprise recipient of 100 million in USAID money.
The company's donations are split and relatively small, but they do spend an increasing volume of money in lobbying. Amy Klobuchar is the top recipient of funds.
80% of their 2024 employee donations go to Democratic candidates.
For Walt Disney Co., the numbers are similar. 63.4% of employee donations are to the Democratic party. The company itself spends 5 million on lobbying annually. Donations started decoupling in the Democratic favor around 2008.
Although USGLC was founded in 1995, it only gained federal prominence in the 2008 cycle. Bill Gates gave USGLC its first big investment in 2007.