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 NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete.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
๐งตTHREAD: CNN & The State Department & : A Hidden Partnership ๐๐บ
Everyone knows CNN as "the world's newsroom." What's less discussed is how closely its reporting coordinates with U.S. and U.N. foreign policy machinery.
Richard Haass, former member of the National Security Council, said CNN was useful because โCNN gave [us] tremendous access to markets that normally [we] couldnโt get to โฆ We felt we could manage public opinion in this country and โฆ manage the alliance, or the coalition dimensions of the war, as well as get to the Iraqi people and the Arab world.โ
In other words, Washington deliberately used CNN to send messages to domestic audiences, allies in Europe, and Arab publics. The interdependence goes sleep.
As always, patience as I pull the thread together.
CNN was founded in 1980 by Ted Turner and Kofi Annan. As the world's first 24/7 global broadcasting channel, it had an immense impact on the State Department. As State Department press secretary put it, "Time for reaction is compressed. Analysis and intelligence-gathering is out."
In other words, old diplomatic process (intelligence, cables, staff work) is bypassed. Instead, the person speaking on CNN, becomes central. CNN became where U.S. foreign policy gets constituted in real-time.
CNN rewired the intelligence game, leaving the State Department little choice but to become interdependent on them.
CNN correspondents often checked in with State Department officials before airing sensitive reports, while State Department analysts, in turn, increasingly relied on CNNโs real-time coverage as a source of information.
@JDVance Schwartz graduated in 2014 from Dartmouth, becoming a State Department correspondent with the WSJ. In 2016, she earned Arthur F. Burns fellowship to work journalism in Germany -- a fellowship which is financed in part by the German government itself.
๐งต THREAD: The worldview of George Soros, the self-styled Messiah who reshaped the modern age
He once admitted:
"If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhoodโฆ But when I had made my way in the world I wanted to indulge my fantasies to the extent that I could afford."
And indulge them he did.
Iโve written many threads about Soros, but never one that lays out his ideology in full, why his money carried more weight than Rockefeller or Bezos, why his methods proved uniquely disruptive.
Sorosโs time is running short. But the system he engineered, the ripple effects of his philosophy, will outlive him by generations.
The question isnโt whether we agree with him. Itโs whether weโre willing to study his playbook... and use the same tools ourselves.
Stay with me as I pull this thread together.
As we will soon see, Soros played a non-trivial role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he developed a financial theory called reflexivity. He went onto applying it to be one of the most successful hedge fund managers ever, if not hte most successful.
He found that it applied to history as well as finances and used it to hasten the Soviet Union's collapse.
What is reflexivity?
Traditional economics assume that price is a reflection of market facts. That everything settles to its usual price.
Soros assumed the opposite: Prices are always wrong, but not only that, but and prices reshape facts.
๐งต THREAD: Why the UK Can't Deport Refugees, Even Criminal Ones
A Scottish teenโs viral clash with a migrant, and a MPโs new report on R*pe G*ngs, have reignited debate over asylum and deportation in Britain.
This thread will detail:
โ๏ธ what treaties the UK signed onto
โ๏ธ why deportations get blocked again and again
๐ท the financial incentives built into the system
Itโs more complex โ and more instructive for the US โ than most headlines admit.
Patience while I pull the thread togetherโฆ ๐๐
First, if you haven't already seen @RupertLowe10 's report, here it is:
@RupertLowe10 Two UNHCR treaties, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, form the foundation for international refugee law.
๐น Maxwell denies the charges that she solicited women for Epstein. Rather, these millions Epstein paid were for business reasons.
๐นMaxwell says she did NOT see underage girls involved or anything "non-consensual" or anything improper.
๐นMaxwell says there has never been a list. No blackmail and explicitly calls any rumor of intelligence agency ties "bullshit."
Other details:
๐นEpstein managed the money of Elizabeth Johnson (J&J heir) in the 90s
๐นEpstein had a business relationship with Jes Stanley (former CEO of Barclays)
๐นEpstein helped Lynn de Rothschild financially (although Maxwell says Rothschild will deny it).
๐นEpstein and Andrรฉs Pastrana (Colombia president) traveled together to Colombia and met with Castro in Cuba.
๐นLarry Summer was a personal friend of Epstein.
๐นMaxwell thinks she met Alex Soros at an event but doesn't remember the exact context.
๐นSergey Brin held a birthday party, possibly with Epstein (I can't tell from transcript), and Elon Musk was present.
๐นBobby Kennedy knew Epstein, she learned that on a dinosaur bone hunting trip (of all things)...
๐นMaxwell says Trump seemed friendly with Epstein, but explicitly says she never saw anything improper.
๐นEpstein for some reason loved inviting scientists like Stephen Jay Gould for dinner and talking science with them.
Transcripts are here - I am as surprised as any of you:
๐จ๐ฃ THREAD: John Bolton: The Man Who Never Saw a War He Didnโt Like ๐ฃ๐จ
John Bolton got his start as Reagan's assistant administrator of USAID -- a time when USAID was dramatically re-transformed from Nixon-era "New Directions" third-world assistance to being contingent on "Democracy & Governance" Cold War goals.
This thread unpacks:
1๏ธโฃ His obsession with staying in wars forever
2๏ธโฃ How his NGO & think-tank gigs kept him flush with hawkish donors
3๏ธโฃ His time in the Trump administration and why his home got searched
As always, patience as I pull this together. ๐งต
In his most infamous video where he was handed a grenade trophy, he says:
"I was in charge of policy and budget at USAID during the Reagan administration, when we undertook a major effort to fix it. And I'm going to show you my farewell present from AID. You can see itโs a hand grenade. And it says on it: โJohn R. Bolton, Truest Reaganaut, AID 1983. This is a style of government."
I assume that to mean that Bolton "invented" D&G. Democracy and Governance emerged as a new USAID category in the 1980s as a way of countering Soviet funding in Latin America, particularly El Salvador -- but did not end after the Cold War. "Democracy assistance" spawned to a montrosity