Project Syndicate is a prominent op-ed syndication service based in Prague. Its contributors are almost invariably prestigious, including “45 Nobel laureates, 111 heads of state,” and many other influential opinion leaders. I find Project Syndicate a very useful bellwether of global establishment opinion (on a par with The Economist).
Project Syndicate’s influence is difficult to measure, although it claims to reach 476 media outlets in 154 countries. Its stated objective is to spread Western establishment op-eds into the developing world, notably Central and Eastern Europe:
News organizations in developed countries provide financial contributions for the rights to Project Syndicate commentaries, which enables us to offer these rights for free, or at subsidized rates, to newspapers and other media in the developing world. Because no publication is turned down solely on the basis of its inability to pay, Project Syndicate has cultivated strong partnerships with the most respected news media in every country in which it operates. This, in turn, has made Project Syndicate an even more attractive outlet for the world’s most eminent authors, for whom a truly global audience simply is not available elsewhere.
The prominent Jewish “explainer” pundit Ezra Klein, who now heads Vox, once promoted Project Syndicate calling it “The World’s Smartest Op-Ed Page”:
[Project Syndicate is] not just well-intentioned. It’s really, really good. [. . .] Like Tribune Media Services or the Creators Syndicate Group, it syndicates columnists. But within that, it has a sort of unique model: It syndicates experts. Rather than Mark Shields and From Harrop, it’s got Brad DeLong and Nouriel Roubini and Joschka Fischer and Lucian Bebchuk. And it adds new experts on topics relevant to the issues of the day (Bebchuk and Roubini, for instance, are both finance experts who were recently added to Project Syndicate’s ranks). Best of all, you can read it online. For free. It’s like the world’s smartest op-ed page.
Project Syndicate’s content, as one might expect, suffers from extreme globalist and anti-nationalist bias, reflecting the U.S. and EU’s current parochial ruling elites. Recurring themes include: Why free trade is unpopular, but absolutely necessary. Why the European Union is unpopular, but absolutely necessary. Why a bellicose foreign policy is unpopular, but absolutely necessary. Why displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism are unpopular, but absolutely necessary. Any deviation from globalist policies is almost invariably portrayed as a supreme moral and political disaster.
There’s inevitably a lot of hand-wringing involved.
Conversely, populist politicians who might halt or reverse globalist policies — such as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, or even Vladimir Putin — are almost invariably portrayed as grave threats to the global economy, world peace, and “democracy.” Whole sections of the Project Syndicate website have titles like “Donald Trump Against the World,” “The Brexit Delusion” (referring to possible British withdrawal from the failing EU), “Donald Berlusconi,” “Russia’s War on Europe in Ukraine,” and so on.
Most prominent is the section “Crossing into Fortress Europe,” overwhelmingly made up of pleas in favor of the disproportionately low-IQ, inbred, illiterate, and violent Afro-Islamic “migrants.” This includes a pseudo-heart-felt plea from Bernard-Henri Lévy, the destroyer of Libya and fanatical Zionist supporter of the ethno-state of Israel, with its racist Jews-only immigration policy. There is also an article from the odious Goldman Sachs-EU-UN official Peter Sutherland (who is no stranger to TOO: Francis Carr Begbie noted his “ pronouncement on immigration when the former Goldman Sachs banker (who made £125 million from the Goldman IPO) said that the EU should do it’s best to ‘undermine the homogeneity” of its member states.'”)
Project Syndicate, by my count, has published exactly one migration-skeptic story, by the British former senior financial regulator Adair Turner. Turner points out, with understated yet dazzling common sense: Firstly, the underlying problem to be tackled is excessive fertility in the Third World, particularly Africa; secondly, given automation, the alleged economic benefits of these largely-uneducated migrants to Europe are highly questionable. (Has Turner been reading Thilo Sarrazin, that other very sensible former senior economic official?)
While hostile to Western and European nationalisms in general, Project Syndicate has frequently published advocates of hardcore Jewish ethno-nationalism and of violent Jewish supremacism in occupied Palestine, such as former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. Ben-Ami’s contributions are stereotypical, including kvetching about “neo-Soviet” Russian imperialism, the plight of European Jews (presented as a powerless existentially-threatened minority, as opposed to Europe’s most privileged ethnic group), and Central-Eastern Europe’s rising nationalist “authoritarianism” (which, of course, to this day remains infinitely moderate compared to the openly racist ultra-nationalism of mainstream Israeli politics).
Recently, Project Syndicate has gone into overdrive in publishing attacks on Trump in particular, noting quite perceptively:
The prospect of a Trump presidency, once a surreal scenario, can no longer be dismissed, and Project Syndicate commentators have been assessing the likely consequences of his triumph for the United States and for the world. Equally important, they have been suggesting that Trump represents merely the leading edge of a transnational populist wave that could profoundly influence global economic performance and geopolitical stability.
As Ezra Klein suggests, Project Syndicate wraps its globalist and anti-nationalist talking points in the garb of “expertise.” In fact, the quality of the op-eds, often contributed by second-rate or has-been retired politicians, is frequently mediocre. There is often a remarkable degree of comical simplification and historical ignorance.
Examples abound. Simon Johnson, a former IMF official and senior academic, asserts in an genuinely apocalyptic article entitled “Donald the Destroyer” that Trump’s election would lead to global economic depression, a totalitarian police state (even as the EU and its governments move to criminalize criticism of migration, Islam, and the EU itself), and worse. Johnson dares to write of Trump’s opposition to illegal and Muslim immigration:
It is also fundamentally anti-American, in the sense of undermining everything that the country has achieved. The US is a nation of immigrants — the best in the world at integrating new arrivals. After one generation in the country, no one cares where your family came from.
This statement betrays a really quite astonishing ignorance of both American history — a selective immigration policy was a distinctive American tradition from Benjamin Franklin until the 1960s — and contemporary American politics, given the increasing racialization of politics on both the Left and the Right.
Another example of historical illiteracy is provided by Swedish foreign minister and long-time collaborator in U.S./NATO imperialism Carl Bildt, who wrote recently: “Are the United States and Europe turning away from the policies of openness that have historically driven their economic success?” Obviously every student of Economics 101 knows that the United States was protectionist from the Founding Fathers through Abraham Lincoln until the 1950s (see: the American School of economics), and there are similar traditions in other Western countries. The Enlightenment thinkers who founded classical republicanism typically stressed the benefits of protectionism in enabling economic autonomy, a necessary precondition for genuine political sovereignty.
In another piece, former U.S. ambassador Christopher Hill, with absurd hyperbole, describes the young communist dictator Kim Jong-Un as “the Donald Trump of North Korea.”
I read these sometimes comically alarmist attacks on Trump as reflecting an emotion among our establishment elites: Fear. Fear bordering on desperation. I believe the realization is dawning upon them that Trump really could derail their globalist gravy train and, like the unveiling of the wizard of Oz, could reveal these unpatriotic parasites for the gnomish illusionists they are. Not only would they lose their benefits under the current regime but, having collaborated their entire lives in the service of evil, oligarchic powers against the interests of the European peoples, do they not fear, if the dam should break, that they themselves would face retribution?
Now the interesting question: Just who is behind Project Syndicate, you ask? The website explains:
Project Syndicate began in the early 1990s as an initiative to assist newly independent media in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, before quickly expanding to Western Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Our rapid growth has been guided by a simple credo: All people — wherever they live, whatever their income, and whatever language they use — deserve equal access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives.
Project Syndicate thus provides an invaluable global public good: ensuring that news media in all countries, regardless of their financial and journalistic resources — and often in challenging political environments — can offer readers original, engaging, and thought-provoking analysis by the world’s leading innovators in economics, politics, health, technology, and culture. Indeed, without Project Syndicate, most of the publications we serve would be unable to secure comparable commentaries.
Note the altruistic tone. I am not sure who were the original founders of Project Syndicate. However it is currently funded by George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation (at least until recently), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Climate Foundation (itself seemingly funded by rather generic European backers), and something called the Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Global Initiatives (from the United Arab Emirates).
There’s the Zio-Wahhabi-Cuck alliance for you! This constellation of corrupt interlocking cliques has been dominating Western immigration and foreign policy (especially in the Middle East) for decades.
I would not be surprised if Soros and his ilk had the leading role in setting up Project Syndicate in the 1990s, with the goal of rapidly worming their way into recently-liberated post-communist Europe, so as to impose the post-60s Western ideological consensus.
What is certain is that Project Syndicate today is editorially dominated by Jews. The editorial board is made up of Roman Frydman, Kenneth Murphy (gentile?), Andrzej Rapaczynski, and Jonathan Stein (managing editor). Frydman and Rapaczynski are close academic colleagues, having published numerous papers together. I cannot confirm that Rapaczynski is Jewish (though his is a Jewish name), but he has lectured on “the rise of global anti-Semitism” with considerable alarm.
The senior contributing editor is the somewhat pathetic former British prime minister Gordon Brown. The other contributing editors are John Andrews (gentile?), Alex Friedman, and Jeffrey Sachs (who is marketed as the top global “development economist,” explaining what we need to do for the Third World to stop being an economic basket case).
The series editors are Nina Krushcheva (the ideologically very conventional great-granddaughter of Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev) and Joana Rose, possibly Jewish.
The organization is formally led by chairman William Newton-Smith (a Canadian philosopher, apparently), assisted by Anatole Kaletsky, who at least one source indicates is Jewish (“Kaletsky” is certainly a Jewish name).
How amazing that a group representing less than 0.2% of the global population can make up about 50% of the senior positions in a globally-influential media organization like Project Syndicate!
Project Syndicate’s most frequently published columnists include a very large proportion of Jews, especially among their economists, including Michael Boskin, Barry Eichengreen, Jeffrey Frankel, Anatole Kaletsky, Kenneth Rogoff, Nouriel Roubini, Joseph Stiglitz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Mark Leonard, Dominique Moïsi, Martin Feldstein, Robert Shiller, Ricardo Hausmann, Dani Rodrik, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Skidelsky, Bernard-Henri Lévy, and Peter Singer. They probably make up about a third of the top authors. This probably reflects Jews’ wider domination of “punditry” in the Western world, especially the Anglo-American countries and France.
Among Project Syndicate’s authors of particular interest to me are various European politicians, usually past their prime. Joschka Fischer, Carl Bildt, and Guy Verhofstadt are just some of the “hard cuckers” published on this website. They are in fact crude imitators of Bill Clinton: Having fully imbibed the destructive and absurd ideology of the 1960s, they have no loyalty to their own people, enthusiastically celebrate the advent of ethnic Europeans’ reduction to minorityhood in their own lands, and are willing to enforce the worst injustices demanded by the above mentioned Zio-Wahhabi-Cuck alliance (which could also be termed the Judeo-American Empire).
And they are pathetic creatures, these “democratic politicians.” They only exist with the attention and approval of the globalist oligarchs who control the mass media and fund political parties. For the latter, they are willing to prostitute themselves politically, intellectually, and personally without limit. But once they have served their purpose, they are quickly forgotten.
Project Syndicate then shows us on a small scale the Jewish ethnic nepotism and biases that pervades Western media establishments in general: the anti-national Gazeta Wyborcza under Adam Michnik in Poland, the Israeli oligarch Patrick Drahi’s media empire in France, the Bonnier Group in Sweden, the Rothschild/corporate-owned The Economist in Britain, to not speak of the New York Times and Hollywood in the United States, etc, etc.
Such a predominance of a group representing less than 0.2% of the global population, at both Project Syndicate and countless other far more influential media organizations, is obviously impossible without ethnic nepotism and cliquishness. I do not fault them for that. But what is intolerable is that these same ethnocentric Jews are, so often, the leaders of movements attacking Western and European ethnocentrism and identity. Having risen to unprecedented power and privilege in our countries through systematic ethnic nepotism, they accuse Europeans of “racism” and scapegoat us for the failures of African, Muslim, and Mestizo minorities. And, as in the case of Project Syndicate, they are ever-consistent advocates of globalism concerning Western and European countries, yet tolerant of Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel.
As ever, comments and further information from our readers are highly welcome.
The cultural war in Central-Eastern Europe is incidentally extremely important. Today, the vast majority of ordinary people retain common sense and patriotism, leading them to be instinctively opposed to obviously disastrous Afro-Islamization of their societies. In the new generation however, the “educated,” Westernized fraction of the population — typically employed by foreign corporations, the EU, or various global organizations — are seeking to “enlighten” their supposedly backward countrymen with the poison that is destroying the West. (Another reason why the American Alt Right is extremely important: If the cultural battle is won in the prestigious Anglo-American cultural sphere, then it will be largely won worldwide as well.)