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 NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete.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
๐น In college, Barack Obama helped co-found a local chapter of CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador), a U.S. group that supported the FMLN, a Marxist guerrilla front fighting the U.S.-backed Salvadoran government.
๐น CISPES often worked alongside the Nicaragua Network, which championed the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. (U.S. intelligence later confirmed that the Sandinistas supplied El Salvadorโs rebels with weapons and training.)
๐น As the solidarity scene matured:
โข 1985: Nicaragua Network + Detroit CISPES โก๏ธ merge โ CASC (Central America Solidarity Committee)
โข 1993: CASC + MICAH โก๏ธ merge โ OSCA (Organization in Solidarity with Central America)
โข 1998: Former Nicaragua Network activists incorporate the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), folding their old network inside as a project.
Today AFGJ still operates as a left-wing umbrella group ... the same lineage that began with 1980s โsolidarityโ campaigns.
So yesโฆ the activist ecosystem that once rallied for Marxist guerrillas in Central America evolved, merged, and rebranded, and figures like Obama (via early CISPES work) and later Bill Ayers (through AFGJ-linked circles) both trace lines back into that same network.
CISPES (of which Obama founded a local chapter, according to David Garrow) was found to have furnished funds to Marxist rebels in El Salvador, in possible violation of the Firearms Control Act.
They also met with FMLN, potentially violating FARA.
The report goes onto detail other allegations that weren't substantiated, such as CISPES taking direction from foreign governments on when and where to demonstrate.
I found a declassified CIA document that states that Farid Handal, brother of the Salvadoran Communist leader, traveled to meet with representatives of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to create these solidarity networks in the USA -- including CISPES.
๐งต THREAD: Meet the Organizers Behind No Kings protest: Indivisibleโs Leah Greenberg & Ezra Levin ๐บ๐ธ
Taking a break from book writing for this...
This week, the movement that started with a Google Doc... Indivisible... is back in the streets. โ Founded by former congressional staffers Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin and funded by George Soros' Open Society network, Indivisible has grown from a viral guide into one of the most powerful grassroots networks in the U.S.
Now, theyโre leading NoKings, a nationwide push to remind America that democracy means no one is above the law. ๐โ
This thread dives into who Greenberg and Levin are, how Indivisible rose to prominence, and whatโs really behind the โNo Kingsโ movement.
As always, patience as I pull the thread together in real time.
๐
When you go to the NoKings website, you'll find over a hundred partners listed, many of them familiar and many Soros-backed. They include big names closely tied to the DNC such as Marc Elias' Democracy Forward.
Greenberg and Levin are co-founders of Indivisible. Other than donor-advised funds, their backing primarily comes from Open Society and Fund for a Better Future. The latter is a shadowy nonprofit backed by Sergey Brin and played a key role in the infamous "Build Back Better" campaign of 2020.
Does anyone know how the SPLC is funded? They report receiving over $100MM in contributions each year, but CauseIQ shows they receive few large grants from other nonprofits; they report only 26MM and that's over multiple years. That's unusual. (And, no, they don't report receiving government money.)
๐งต THREAD: Richard Grenell: praising "diplomacy" with Maduro, Chevron, and the pro-Venezuelan MAGA faction ๐ป๐ช
Just last week, Grenell declared:
"I've sat across from Nicolรกs Maduro... I believe we can still have a deal. I believe in diplomacy. I believe in avoiding war."
Maduro is a Communist tyrant who has upended hundreds of thousands of lives, Venezuela is the self-declared capital of Antifa, and serves as the Western hemisphere proxy for Chinese and Iranian interests.
Why is President Trump's special envoy talking like this on stage in Asunciรณn? ๐ณ๏ธ๐
The answer goes a lot deeper and darker than you'd think.
This might be my most controversial thread yet... but it involves a whole lot of MAGA players who are invested in maintaining the status quo with Venezuela, mostly through Chevron oil licenses.
For a long time, Chevron has had its tentacles on MAGA. Back on May 6th, a coordinated messaging campaign went up among multiple mega-influencers. Two days after that, one of the most famous MAGA influencers wrote her first op-ed concerning Chevron and China messaging. I redact the name because I don't want to make it about her.
This early May timing coincided with the threat to shut down Chevron leases on May 27.
Earlier this year, Harry Sargeant III was identified as the one who opened up communications between Maduro and Grenell in an attempt to create an "oil-for-migrants" deal. His
@MrAndyNgo This might be the first case of "Democracy Theory" radicalizing a killer (as opposed to the usual trans/antifa motives). He followed all the democracy folks. Posted a lot about saving democracy.