Editor’s note: This is the first chapter of Scott Howard’s new book, The Open Society Playbook, available at Antelope Hill Publishing. Howard is also author of The Transgender Industrial Complex, also published by Antelope Hill and reviewed in TOO  by John Q. Publius.

No one follows the money as well as Scott Howard does. And remember, Soros’s money goes a lot further and is likely very motivating to people living in relatively economically depressed areas like much of Eastern Europe.

The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change…What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about.

– George Soros 

Since its inception, the Open Society Foundations have officially dispensed nearly $17 billion over tens of thousands of grants. But to what purpose? Is this charity and good works for their own sake? Of course not. George Soros admits in his 1997 piece for The Atlantic entitled “The Capitalist Threat” that the function of his foundation network active in countries under communism was designed to be “subversive,” and that, “For five or six years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, I devoted practically all of my energies to the transformation of the formerly Communist world.” He hasn’t stopped, and neither was this the beginning of his endeavors.

Soros’s “philanthropic work” began in the late 1970s by funding scholarships for black university students in South Africa during apartheid to ultimately weaponize them against whites, particularly the Boer and the system of self-preservation they had in place. In 1979, according to the Open Soceity Foundations’ website, Soros said, “[South Africa] was a closed society with all the institutions of a first world country, but they were off-limits to the majority of the population on racial grounds. Where could I find a better opportunity for opening up a closed society?” Indeed, and the sad fate of the Rainbow Nation reminds us precisely what the future holds.

The Open Society Foundations have, as highlighted, been particularly active in the former Eastern Bloc countries, owing in no small part to the Jewish Soros’ upbringing in Hungary.

In 1986, at the same time Mikhail Gorbachev launched new policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in the USSR, George Soros was allowed to open a private foundation in Poland, which was followed the year after by one in Moscow. On June 17th, 1991, George Soros and Ante Marković, the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, signed an agreement founding the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation, which would undertake projects in all six of the country’s republics. In 1992, Soros and the Open Society Foundations established separate foundations in Croatia and Slovenia, followed by Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation operating in Serbia (including its provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo) and Montenegro. Also in 1992, Soros launched Central European University, which has “offered young people across the region a new, international, and pluralist perspective” (read: that of open borders activism and neoliberalism). Over 14,000 students have graduated from Central European University, including Giorgi Margvelashvili (president of Georgia from 2013-18), two former justice ministers (one from Croatia and one from Romania), a Hungarian Member of Parliament, and a number of other prominent figures, including many functionaries in the Open Society Foundations itself.

In a glowing Soros feature from The New Yorker in 1995, titled “The World According to Geroge Soros,” his influence over the political process in several Eastern European countries is framed as a positive for democracy, but in what way is the following democratic, other than that “liberal” and “democratic” have been taken to be synonymous:

Ljupčo Georgievski, the right-wing head of the opposition V.M.R.O. (International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) Party, charges that the Soros foundation is “a support machine to the government.” Virtually all foundation grants, he says, go to those associated in some way with the ruling party. Referring to a television station, A1, that receives Soros support, Georgievski said, “It is truly an alternative in its cultural programming; however, in politics…you see ministers of the present Macedonian government more often than on state TV.”… Contrasting the Soros foundation in Ukraine with its counterparts in other countries, [Bohdan Krawchenko, a Ukrainian-Canadian historian who returned to Ukraine in 1991 and was recruited by Dr. Bohdan Hawrylyshyn and Soros to work for the foundation] told me, “There is no other place where the Soros foundation is so plugged in at the top…The deputy minister of finance sat with George and me in a basement almost four years ago and we tried to figure out what to do about monetary reform.” That deputy minister of finance, Olech Havrylyshyn (a nephew of Bohdan), was on the payroll of the Soros foundation—as was the deputy governor of the National Bank (George Yurchyshyn, a Ukrainian-American who had previously been a vice-president at the Bank of Boston)…Soros had placed his own agents in key positions… What Soros undoubtedly did do was enable the successful Kuchma to win for Ukraine a commitment for a crucial, I.M.F.-administered loan program of nearly four billion dollars. The loan had been strongly recommended by the United States at a Group of Seven economics meeting just before Kuchma’s victory, but it was contingent on Ukraine’s instituting economic reforms… Soros was galvanized. He got in touch with Anders Åslund, of the Carnegie Institute, who has worked on economic reform in Russia, and asked him to come with him and John Fox to Ukraine…After meeting with President Kuchma, Soros directed Åslund to organize a team to work with the Ukrainians on their negotiations with the I.M.F. And he fired off a memo, distributed to the White House, the Treasury, the State Department, the I.M.F., and the World Bank, in which he argued that this was the moment, and this was the group.…The day the agreement was announced, Soros was attending a conference in Kiev sponsored by the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee, a group organized by Zbigniew Brzezinski; Henry Kissinger was there as well….Roman Shpek, the Minister of the Economy, who is leading the reforms, is a graduate of Soros’ Management Training Institute. The Institute for Public Administration, which Krawchenko heads, has also produced significant players…During Soros’ late-September visit a task force—including people from the World Bank, the Ukrainian government, and the Soros foundation—was created to wage a media campaign for the reforms.

“Reform” here is yet another shining example of newspeak.

Also of crucial importance, the 1995 feature ominously foreshadows the fate of Slobodan Milošević and resistance to the “open society,” as “the Belgrade foundation…is repeatedly threatened with being closed down by the government of Slobodan Milošević.” We all know how that turned out. Be it NATO bombs or subversive propaganda—in the case of Yugoslavia, both—all resistance must be dealt with. Though Soros claims that “We are not running McDonald’s. Open Society is a different story,” it does seem like the Open Society Foundations are intent on knocking down every barrier and every unique structure to make way for a McDonald’s instead.

While remaining fixed in a capitalist-communist binary remains advantageous to the ruling class, the reality is that neoliberalism is in its own right a fusion of the two, though with communism mutating into the social sphere in the form of Cultural Marxism. It is mutating, however, with the fusion of superficially-separate entities into one Leviathan. In effect, it does not matter if it’s Microsoft or the state that’s imposing social reengineering and demographic transformation on the terrestrial square it lays claim to, irrespective of ethnic and generational ties to it. Whether ostensibly Blue or Red, they’re all on the same team. Governments are more accountable to the shareholders than the voters in the much-vaunted “democracy” of the modern world, one where outside forces shape elections all the time, but only fictitious Russian scandals are blared over virtually every corporate media channel in America. Tellingly, as the article continues:

The broadcast stations of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty continue to be funded by the United States government,[1] but in early 1994 Soros entered a joint venture to acquire the organization’s research institute and, under a fifty-year lease, its archives. Both operations are now subsumed under a new entity, the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI). Based in Prague, it has a seven-member board: Soros and two others from his staff; two people from the Board for International Broadcasting (the government agency that oversees Radio Free Europe); and two “independents” (one chosen by Soros and one by the B.I.B.). It should be noted that if the independents were to side with their selectors, the lineup would, predictably, be 4–3, Soros.

Today, RFE/RL remains very active, funded by a grant from the US Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) as a private grantee; its budget for fiscal year 2021 was $637.3 million. The USAGM provides “oversight” and according to their website:

…serves as a firewall to protect the professional independence and integrity of all U.S. international public service media, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, and the non-profit corporations that are BBG grantees: Radio Free Asia, RFE/RL, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). USAGM also provides oversight of the work of the Open Technology Fund, which finances the development and distribution of cutting edge technologies and techniques to counter efforts by repressive regimes and closed societies to block access to objective news and information.

According to their 2018 Annual Report, they signed an agreement with Plex, a multi-platform video streaming company, to place USAGM content on its Plex News app, which has 14 million users. USAGM programming will now slot alongside other propaganda outlets like CNN and the BBC. A recent project saw the establishment of a 24/7 Russian-language TV and digital channel with a “specialized web and social media team that counters Kremlin disinformation.” No propaganda campaign for “open societies” would be complete without the incessant promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, either: in 2018, RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal publicized a “sports festival for transgender individuals” in Pakistan and Radio Martí launched Arcoiris (Rainbow), to “explore LGBTQ life in Cuba, the United States and around the world, including the social and cultural status of that community as well as their civil and human rights.” Speaking of Cuba, in late 2014 it emerged that USAID was employing the “urban youths” strategy the US State Department prefers in France by using rappers in Cuba “to break the information blockade” and foment unrest through “activism,” agitating for “social change.”

The nine-member USAGM Broadcasting Board of Governors includes: the Jewish Leon Rabinovich Aron, who immigrated to the United States from Moscow in 1978 as a refugee and is a resident scholar and the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI);[2] the Jewish Michael Kempner, Hillary Clinton mega-donor and Barack Obama “bundler,” Obama-appointee to the White House Council for Community Solutions (a council that works to “reengage disenfranchised youth”), and whose PR firm was hired by Israel’s Ministry of Tourism (“the firm will also seek to reach out to the LGBT community”);[3] the Jewish Karen Kornbluh, Senior Fellow and Director of German Marshall Fund’s Technology Policy program “which works to help shape a future in which technology strengthens rather than undermines democratic values,” former Senior Fellow for Digital Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Executive Vice President of External Affairs for Nielsen, former US Ambassador in Paris to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), former Policy Director for then-Senator Barack Obama as well as serving as deputy chief of staff at the US Treasury Department, and former Director of the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Federal Communications Commission in the Clinton administration; the Jewish Jeff Shell, CEO of NBCUniversal; and the Jewish Kenneth Weinstein, Chairman of the Board and President and CEO of the Hudson Institute.

From sustained effort financing projects that actively undermined the regime of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia, after the neoliberal Establishment toppled Milošević and held him captive, as Mirko Klarin writes in the Open Society Foundations’ Building Open Society in the Western Balkans report:

The fact that these protribunal [sic] media and NGOs were supported by the Open Society Foundations did not go unnoticed by Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj, a Serbian nationalist politician also indicted for war crimes by the tribunal. They both, on more than one occasion, described the ICTY as “Soros’ Court.”

For Milena Dragićević-Šešić, from the same report:

Open Society–backed activism in the arts and other cultural institutions in Serbia began with a radio station: Belgrade’s B92. Its music and information programs challenged the state media’s nationalistic worldview…The idea was not to underwrite art for art’s sake. The aim was to use targeted funding…B92 blazed a path for other artists ready to challenge xenophobia, patriarchal values, hate speech, and ethnic stereotypes…In September 1994, Radio B92’s cultural center, Rex, opened in an abandoned building of Belgrade’s Jewish community center… “Worried September! Wilhelm Reich in Belgrade – Lust for Life” was a project devoted to the common individual—of Belgrade and the world— who, in despair, withdraws from life and cedes responsibility for his or her being and future. “Lust for Life” had multiple dimensions, including publication of a translation of Listen, Little Man!, a book by Wilhelm Reich, a highly controversial psychoanalyst who studied under Freud…In Zagreb, Croatia, ZCCE3000 undertook conferences, art festivals, exhibitions, workshops, lectures, presentations, publications, and media productions. A crucial component of the project was to reform the institutional settings of independent culture, increasing its influence and strengthening its resources. One of its collaborators, What, How and For Whom, organized a complex exhibition on the 152^nd anniversary of the Communist Manifesto’s publication, returning Marx to the public sphere in Belgrade for the first time since 1989.

Returning to the January 1995 profile of Soros from The New Yorker:

Soros funds are involved as co-investors in certain projects in developing countries with the International Finance Corporation, the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group…With the Clinton Administration, Soros, a newly turned Democrat, has made the kind of inroads that he was unable to make before…He has cultivated excellent relationships with high-ranking officials in the State Department and at Treasury. He has opened a Washington office, which, as one Soros associate told me, will function as “his State Department.” While intense lobbying efforts he has made on behalf of Macedonia over the past year or so have not really succeeded, in the last several months he has thrown the weight of his influence and his resources behind achieving Western aid for Ukraine, and there he has won at least a preliminary victory. Recently, too, he said that he intends to focus increasingly on the West, concentrating on finding ways of making “our own open society more viable.”…Morton Abramowitz, the former United States Ambassador to Turkey, who is now the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and has participated in a Soros-funded advocacy group on the Balkans, [said,] “He’s now become a player.”… György Jaksity, an analyst at Concorde Securities, in Budapest, told me, “The first book on business that I read that was written not from a Marxist but from a free-market standpoint said, ‘Sponsored by the Soros Foundation.’ . . . People like me know that the book they are reading, the teacher who teaches them, were sponsored by Soros.”

Abramowitz and Michele Dunne are both Carnegie Endowment for International Peace alumni as well as former Board members of the National Endowment for Democracy. Other names you might recognize as former NED Board members include Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Wesley Clark, Paula Dobriansky, Kenneth Duberstein, Francis Fukuyama, Orrin Hatch, Richard Holbrooke, Walter Mondale, Henry Kissinger, Robert Zoellick, Paul Wolfowitz, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, plus other figures such as Instagram CEO Marne Levine and Princeton Lyman (ambassador, USAID, Aspen Institute, Harvard, Council on Foreign Relations, Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies). This is how these things go.

Joining with the economic “impetus” has increasingly been the “humanitarian” angle, with Soros but one figure, albeit a central one. Looking once to the January 1995 profile of Soros from The New Yorker:

In philanthropy…which Soros began in earnest about ten years ago—when he started a foundation in Budapest which aimed to foster the democratic values of an “open society” as defined by the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, and which supported dissidents living under the Communist regime—he kept a relatively low profile. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, however, he began to reposition himself. He turned over the day-to-day management of the fund to an exemplary trader, Stanley Druckenmiller, and he immersed himself in the world of his foundations—by then, there were four—multiplying their number in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and dramatically accelerating the level of his giving. At the same time, he began to advocate that the West follow his lead, providing aid, in what he often referred to as an updated Marshall Plan, to the countries of the former Communist bloc.

We see here the fusion of ideology, economics, and extreme in-group favoritism that defines neoliberalism almost perfectly reflected in the figure of Soros, and as the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the COVID-19 lockdowns usher in the Great Reset, the next mutation will be completely fused.

According to Žarko Papić, the Open Society Foundations endeavored to use the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans as proof that their “liberalizing” projects had not gone far enough, much like the neoliberals do with the failure of diversity (or success from their perspective, though they won’t let that out):

Published under the title Developing New International Support Policies – Lessons (Not) Learned in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the analysis was widely distributed to international organizations, including departments of the United Nations and bilateral donors, as well as government bodies and other stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As always, the “lessons” are at odds with the reality and excuse the culpability of the worst actors in fomenting crisis in the first place, such as the neoliberal Establishment’s backing of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was basically a collection of criminals, traffickers, drug dealers, and jihadi terrorists responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs; and yet, like the Crusades, it is the defensive response to the provocation that is misrepresented as evidence of “unprovoked hostility,” totally divorced from context in the narrative that has been constructed to always paint one side—white, Christian—as the villains and the other as the perpetual victims, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Additionally, for the Yugoslavian conflicts of the 1990s particularly as regards Kosovo, there was a large Albanian-Muslim population to weaponize, as NATO and the globalist Establishment did against Serbia. The United States has been waging a war against its ostensible allies in Europe for generations; within the last few decades this has ranged from working with George Soros to destabilize and undermine the conservative government in North Macedonia to NATO’s plans for Greater Albania, where drug-runners and Islamist terrorists trained by the CIA in Afghanistan were a key part of the astroturfed “insurgency” in the break-down of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, a Yugoslavia which had actually developed a successfully managed economic counterpoint to neoliberalism. That was, as the college professors say, “problematic.”

The Balkans have long been a target of Soros—the Open Society Foundation in Croatia supported the establishment of the Croatian Law Center and ZAMIR, Croatia’s first independent internet service provider, and the Open Society Index was developed to “measure the level of openness of Croatian society through criteria in education, media, entrepreneurship and economic freedom, transparency of political processes, rule of law, and marginalized groups and minorities.” In North Macedonia, the Open Society Foundation expanded the Step by Step preschool program to 60 schools and “sponsored seminars to improve school curricula, teaching methods, and management” (read: neoliberal indoctrination). In the province of Kosovo, the Open Society Foundation in Serbia provided a $2 million grant to support a “parallel education system.”

Next door, the Open Society Foundations have spent nearly $100 million (that we know about) in North Macedonia since 1992, and have partnered with the US government, Switzerland, France, and the European Union for “development work” in the Balkan country. Between February 27^th, 2012, and August 31^st, 2016, nearly $5 million in US taxpayer money went to the Open Society Foundation – Macedonia (FOSM), in partnership with four local “civil society” organizations. USAID says on their website the project trained hundreds of young Macedonians “on topics such as freedom of association,[4] youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation and use of new media.” USAID has earmarked at least $9.5 million to intervene in North Macedonia’s governmental affairs for 2016-2021; as Tom Fitton writes for Judicial Watch:

Here’s how the clandestine operation functions, according to high-level sources in Macedonia and the U.S. that have provided Judicial Watch with records as part of an ongoing investigation. The Open Society Foundation has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, calls it the “Soros infantry.” The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros’ groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” into Macedonian. The book is a tactical manual of subversion, provides direct advice for radical street protests and proclaims Lucifer to be the first radical.

In case you had any illusions that this was just a political struggle.

Naturally Foreign Policy jumped to the rescue, publishing a piece by Goran Buldioski calling these allegations—what else?—“conspiracy theories,” despite the fact that much of this information is readily available from the sources themselves. Sure, they’ll whitewash what their activities are to cast them in the best light possible, and why wouldn’t they? It’s the tried-and-true tactic of the neoliberal regime: frame subversion as “democratizing,” fostering “inclusion,” focusing on “human rights,” and the like. We know what that actually looks like.

Buldioski, by the way, is the director of the Open Society Foundations’ Berlin office and the Open Society Initiative for Europe. No conflict of interest there. The push-back was in response to the January 2017 formation of the Stop Soros Movement—SOS—in North Macedonia. It was founded by editor-in-chief of the state-run news agency MIA, Cvetin Cilimanov; editor-in-chief of the Republika news portal, Nenad Mircevski; and Nikola Srbov, a columnist for news portal, Kurir. As Balkan Insights reports:

NGOs backed by the Soros Foundation have long been a target of nationalist governments in Russia, Hungary, Macedonia and elsewhere, where authorities are deeply suspicious of their politically and socially liberal agenda…Russia more or less outlawed Soros-affiliated organisations in 2015. This January, authorities in Hungary said they would use “all the tools at its disposal” to “sweep out” NGOs funded by the Hungarian-born financier, which “serve global capitalists and back political correctness over national governments.” Hungarian Leader Viktor Orban last year accused Soros of destabilizing Europe by encouraging mass immigration to Europe from Middle Eastern war zones.

Those are very legitimate accusations.

Metamorphosis is one such group that receives funding from the Open Society Foundations, as well as the US Embassy, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy; despite claiming to stand for “liberal values,” they and other Soros/US government projects have worked to foment unrest under the guise of “democratic” protests. From The American Spectator:

Last March [2016], the Macedonian government boldly closed its border to prevent the tsunami of economic migrants and refugees surging from Greece toward Western Europe, allowing restricted numbers to enter. Open borders is one of George Soros’ most keenly felt priorities. How did his Team respond? Activism! With an admixture of violence and vandalism. The fertilized grassroots…broke into the president’s office, vandalized property, and burned office furniture. Three policemen were injured. Filip Stojanovski, Metamorphosis’ program director and main man, maintains a Twitter profile pic (@razvigor) obscured by bright paint splats — an overt reference to his glory days during last summer’s “Colorful Revolution,” as it is known. “I heard Soros and SDSM activists chanting, ‘No Justice, No Peace,’ which isn’t even a meaningful slogan in Skopje,” recalled Cvetin Chilimanov. “The transfer of tactics from U.S. Left-wing groups funded by Soros to Macedonia is striking.” Simultaneously, the government had to defend its southern border with Greece, while diverting security forces 100 miles away from Skopje, to defend property against political agitators. The traveling MP remembers, “It was a nightmare. The Soros army threw rocks at police guarding VMRO headquarters. Meanwhile, they were handing scissors out on the border to help people cut fences. Chaos.” Information Service editor Chilimanov considers last summer’s melee to signal George Soros’ deepest objectives: “By controlling Macedonia, he can open or close the flow of migrants. The far Left Greek government has accepted no end of migrants. [Soros is close to the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras.] It was our government that stopped the flow so his grand objective is to control this situation.”

In the same article, Jason Miko stated that with North Macedonia:

Low-level State Department bureaucrats are calling the shots because the President hasn’t been able to fill key jobs on the seventh floor…This directly contradicts what President Trump said in his Inaugural address, that we want to let other nations put their own interests first. Instead, in Macedonia, we have an activist ambassador, Jess Baily, working with and funding the Soros organizations saying that no, you don’t have a right to put your own interests first.

Naturally Baily is an alumnus of Columbia University, which readers of The Transgender-Industrial Complex will recognize for the cancerous tumor that it is. For Chris Deliso: “[North Macedonia] is a simple, conservative society of people who know who they are.” For Soros and company, this is intolerable. Instead, they should be getting sex changes and welcoming thousands of unassimilable people from parts unknown to demographically swamp, displace, and eventually replace them. This is liberalism!

According to the Open Society Foundations’ Building Open Society in the Western Balkans report, in Slovenia:

Approximately 100 journalists received grants to visit media organizations abroad, to carry out projects abroad, or to participate in conferences and seminars. The foundation also funded more than 500 civil society projects concerned with ecology, human rights, volunteer work, ethnic minorities, women’s rights, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.

One of the major priorities in Montenegro in the Open Society Foundations’ own words is to “promote diversity.” Further, the Open Society Foundations have indeed been working with the United Nations since at least 1992, when under the guidance of a five-member committee of individuals connected to the Open Society Foundations, $36 million was given to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The activist-ambassador to North Macedonia, Jess Baily, coordinated US policy on political issues before the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly as Director of the Office of UN Political Affairs from 2008 to 2010.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NDI) is involved in dozens of countries, including Soros pet project North Macedonia where, in the NDI’s own words from their website, they are focused on:

Reconfiguring political discourse to be more inclusive…NDI’s programming in the country reflects those needs. With technical support from the U.S. Congress’ House Democracy Partnership…NDI also works with political parties, supporting pluralism and the promotion of women and youth leadership; with civil society organizations, conducting public opinion research, voter education and election observation; and with the country’s historically marginalized groups, including Roma and LGBTI citizens.

To the south, Greece is targeted and even its attempts to quarantine corona-positive migrants were decried as “xenophobic” and the like by Balkan Insight, in an article sponsored by the Resonant Voices Initiative in the EU, funded by the European Union’s Internal Security Fund. Interesting. Really, the Establishment has used COVID-19 as a justification for the most draconian totalitarianism most Westerners have ever experienced, and it is positioned to get a whole lot worse. Notice, as well, that it’s always “far-right,” as though preventing the spread of what appeared to be at the time a serious pandemic is some kind of extreme position. We do know Soros has dialogued with the EU and at his behest has increased the funding for “refugees” significantly in the last decade, especially since the onset of the “migrant crisis.”

The Open Society’s International Migration Initiative “has worked with governments [in Ireland, Spain, and the UK] on the development of refugee resettlement schemes based on a successful Canadian model for helping newly arrived families adjust to their new homes.” Its Advisory Committee includes former Ford Foundation fellow Arturo Sarukhan and Imelda Nicolas, IOM Migration Advisory Board member and consultant for the UN’s Institute of Training and Research focusing on international migration, gender, and development. Staff members include Colleen Thouez (Chair to the capacity-building portfolio of the World Bank’s knowledge partnership on migration); Maria Teresa Rojas (member of the Advisory Committee of the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Center for International Refugee Law at the University of New South Wales); and Elizabeth Frantz (“a researcher for one of the UK’s leading charities giving legal advice and representation to immigrants and asylum seekers”).

The Open Society European Policy Institute, based out of Brussels, “works to place human rights and open society values at the heart of what the European Union does.” Not that the EU needs any prompting: its motto is the Orwellian “United in Diversity.” The Open Society European Policy Institute’s staff includes Natacha Kazatchkine (former senior executive officer at the European Office of Amnesty International) and Marta Martinelli (“responsible for work on gender, democratization, security governance, and development issues in Africa”).

The Open Society Initiative for Europe works to “support groups that combat discrimination and xenophobia, and ensure the protection and well-being of refugees and migrants.” Its staff includes: Brandee Butler (“specialized in international justice as a program officer at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation…Earlier in her career, Butler received the Yale Law School Bernstein Fellowship for International Human Rights”); Goran Buldioski (“Before joining the Open Society Foundations, he worked for the Council of Europe, the Macedonian Center for International Cooperation, and the National Youth Council of Macedonia”); Magdalena Majkowska-Tomkin (“Prior to joining the Open Society Foundations in 2016, Majkowska-Tomkin served as the chief of mission for the International Organization for Migration offices in Hungary and Slovenia”); and Beka Vučo (“joined the Open Society Foundations in 1991, working as a regional director in the New York office where she helped establish Open Society foundations in the Western Balkans”).

In 2007, the Open Society Foundations spent $440 million on its various initiatives. Among its targeted areas included Albania ($1.791 million), Bosnia ($3.11 million), Estonia ($1.769 million), Czech Republic ($1.739 million), Hungary ($289,000), Bulgaria ($2.142 million), Kosovo ($2.438 million), Lithuania ($1.546 million), Moldova ($4.149 million), Montenegro ($1.657 million), Macedonia ($7.229 million), Latvia ($1.853 million), South Africa ($7.452 million), Slovakia ($1.985 million), Poland ($5.699 million through the Stefan Batory Foundation), Romania ($3.555 million), Russia ($6.472 million), Serbia ($4.212 million), Belarus ($1.377 million through OSI-Paris Belarus support), and the Ukraine ($7.809 million through the International Renaissance Foundation). Targeting Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Caucasus and Central Asia have been long-standing priorities for Soros, although his activities have been by no means confined to these regions, with 2007 grants ranging from $4.282 million to the Baltimore, Maryland-based Open Society Institute to $4.287 million to Fundación Soros in Guatemala to the $13.991 million to the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.

In 2006, the Open Society Foundations spent over $415 million on its various initiatives. Disbursals were similar to the year following, although in Europe, $395,000-worth of efforts in Croatia were underwritten by the Soros Network. Soros’ Central European University, which also has its own press established in 1992, has been an instrumental hub for these subversive activities and ideas at the meeting-point of Central and Eastern Europe. As the 2002 Open Society Foundations report brags:

Evidence of CEU’s influence in the world can be found in graduates who have gone on to serve as ministers for education, minorities, and energy, and to represent their countries as senior officials in the UN, EU, Council of Europe, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank.

The Open Society Foundations were represented at the World Bank and IMF’s annual meeting in 2019 along with the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, the UN, Freedom House, USAID, Goldman Sachs, Rothschild & Co., and a slew of other major organizations and institutions that essentially define the neoliberal Establishment.

For reference, observing organizations at the World Bank’s annual meeting in 2019 included: The World Trade Organization (WTO); United Nations Development Program (UNDP); European Commission; OPEC; United Nations Populations Fund; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); European Central Bank; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); United Nations Capital Development Fund; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Green Climate Fund; European Investment Bank Group; ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office; Council of Europe Development Bank; World Health Organization; Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. There are essentially no limits to the subversive and destructive reach of Soros and the Establishment.

---

Bibliography

Andreou, Aggelos. “Europe’s Far-Right Exploits COVID-19 for Anti-Refugee Propaganda.” Balkan Insight. June 4, 2020. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/04/europes-far-right-exploits-covid-19-for-anti-refugee-propaganda/

Aron, Leon. “Russia’s Revolution.” Commentary. November 2002. https://www.commentary.org/articles/leon-aron/russias-revolution/

Bruck, Connie. “The World According to George Soros,” The New Yorker, January 15, 1995. newyorker.com/magazine/1995/01/23/the-world-according-to-soros

Buldioski, Goran. “Balkan Conspiracy Theories Come to Capitol Hill.” Foreign Policy. March 28, 2017. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/28/soros-gop-letter-open-society-macedonia-albania/

Fitton, Tom. “US Gives Soros Groups Millions to Destabilize Macedonia’s Conservative Government.” Judicial Watch. February 28, 2017. https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/u-s-gives-soros-groups-millions-destabilize-macedonias-conservative-govt/

Gaetan, Victor. “Macedonia to George Soros and USAID: Go Away.” The American Spectator. March 24, 2017. https://spectator.org/macedonia-to-george-soros-and-usaid-go-away/

Klarin, Mirko. “Never Again: Judgments on a Decade of Bestiality.” In Open Society Foundations, Building Open Society.

Marusic, Sinisa Jakov. “New ‘Stop Soros’ Movement Unveiled in Macedonia.” Balkan Insight. January 18, 2017. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/01/18/macedonia-forms-anti-soros-movement-01-18-2017/

Open Society Foundations. Building Open Society in the Western Balkans: 1991-2011. New York: 2011. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/b52ff050-5ec4-4df7-b078-e02cf5374bd9/open-society-western-balkans-20111004.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2002 Report. New York: 2002. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/569ceb5a-5a08-472e-ac5f-00b0c0595cf2/a_complete_report_0.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2006 Report. New York: 2006. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/cbdbf3ce-5497-4a41-adbc-7160c825817e/a_complete_3.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2007 Report. New York: 2007. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/3d4ebf2b-918b-4621-a226-dc7a886d8faf/a_complete_4.pdf

Palmer, Joanne. “Stronger Than the Storm.” Jewish Standard. December 20, 2013. https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/stronger-than-the-storm/

Papić, Žarko. The Aid Dilemma: Lessons (Not) Learned in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Open Society Foundations, Building Open Society.

Soros, George. “The Capitalist Threat.” The Atlantic, February 1997. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/02/the-capitalist-threat/376773/

The United States Agency for Global Media. USAGM 2018 Annual Report. 2018. https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/USAGM-AR-2018-final.pdf

 

[1] From the Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate (92^nd Congress) running June 6^th and 7^th, 1972, we learn that from 1949 to the hearings, $553 million in US government funding went to these projects in addition to $46 million from private sources. The West European Advisory Committee to Radio Free Europe at that time included: a pair of Danish Parliamentarians; Paul van Zeeland (NATO, Bilderberg Group, former Belgian Prime Minister); numerous prominent figures within NATO; several German Federal Parliamentarians; Samuel Schweizer (Chairman of the Board, Swiss Bank Corporation); Karl Birnbaum (Director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs); and the list goes on.

[2] From Aron. “Russian Revolution”: “Russian Jews…were among the first to profit from the arrival of economic liberty in their country. Among the no more than twelve Russian ‘oligarchs’—the owners or majority stockholders of the largest industrial and financial groups—five are Jews, and the top managerial level of the Russian oil industry is heavily Jewish as well.”

[3] From Palmer. “Stronger than the Storm”: “The first significant Jewish leaders to support him were Morton and Marian Steinberg, the founders of UJA in Bergen County [and his wife’s parents]… Mr. Kempner is a member of Temple Emanu-El of Closter, and although he is not particularly observant, he feels deeply Jewish, he said. ‘I don’t think that you can be a Jew without having a worldview. Religion has a lot to do with my progressive politics.’”

[4] This is a sick joke if you know anything about the way “civil rights” have been weaponized in the United States.

I take it that the reader is familiar with the basics of the so-called Holocaust: the alleged deaths of some six million Jews, many in gas chambers, at the hands of the Nazis in World War II.  This was, we are told, a deliberate policy of Hitler and his top men, something of highest priority—even above the war effort itself—and a policy of the utmost secrecy.  It was so secret, in fact, that hard documentation and forensic evidence on this catastrophic, world-changing event are almost nonexistent:  no ‘Hitler order’ to kill the Jews, no plans for homicidal gas chambers, no physical remains of gas chambers,[1] no photos of gas chambers or gassed Jews, no autopsies confirming death by gas, no consistent or coherent records of mass shootings that must have totaled over 1.5 million, no evidence of any of the 1 million or so ghetto deaths.  Those ingenious devils, the Nazis, managed to destroy all the evidence—including the physical remains of virtually all six million Jewish corpses—in order to conceal their heinous deed.  They were truly evil geniuses.  Or so we are told.

But this is not my topic for today.  For the full story of the incredible World War II Holocaust, I must refer interested readers to my books The Holocaust: An Introduction (for the concise version), or, for a more detailed discussion, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides (4^th ed, 2020).  Also recommended is the book by Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust (2017).  Suffice to say that there are many facts about this notorious event that our friendly ‘Holocaust experts’ would rather have us not know.

Today, though, I want to focus on a related but perhaps more surprising event:  the Jewish “holocaust” of World War I.  (I will use the lower-case ‘holocaust’ for pre-WWII, reserving the upper-case ‘Holocaust’ for WWII itself.)

Wait, you say; World War I?  But didn’t that occur decades before WWII?  Yes.  Wasn’t that years before the Nazi party even existed?  True enough.  Wasn’t Hitler a mere foot soldier in that initial war?  Indeed he was.  Then who committed the crime?  And why?  And how many Jews suffered in that holocaust?

It is truly a remarkable story, one that is too little known.  It has often been said that “history repeats itself.”  But who would have guessed that a monumentally tragic event like a holocaust could repeat itself, inflicted on the same people, in the same region of the world, and in the same numbers, in just three decades?  This amazing occurrence is worth a bit of exploration; the holocaust of WW1 has huge implications for the Holocaust of WWII, and by extension, for Jewish-Gentile relations in the world today.

Context for War

The precursors and causes of WW1 are vast and complicated, and I cannot delve into those here.  But a key factor, and likely decisive, was the action of the global Jewish Lobby of the day, which pushed for war at every possible juncture; I have detailed this aspect in my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and I refer interested readers to it.  The same Jewish Lobby, it turns out, also had a decisive hand in the holocaust narratives.

For the moment, I will have to restrict myself to the basic facts.  World War I, as we recall, began in July 1914 and ran for a bit more than four years, ending on 11 November 1918.  The Triple Entente of the UK, France, and Russia faced off against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, although Italy dropped out of the Alliance in 1915.  The US eventually entered the war (on the side of the Entente) in April 1917.  Russia, torn apart by the Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution, withdrew in March 1918.  Germany held out for another seven months, but eventually, in November 1918, it too succumbed, in part as a result of internal Jewish agitation,.  In the end, the Alliance suffered some 8 million total casualties (military plus civilian), and the Entente around 10 million.  Despite the many complicating factors, a defeated Germany was ultimately assigned full blame for the war—completely overlooking the fact that that nation “did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine…efforts to avert one,” in the words of historian Sidney Fay.[2]  The onerous postwar reparations inflicted on Germany set the stage, in large part, for the later emergence of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

As in all wars, many civilians were caught in the crosshairs; here, the Jews were no exception.  Their suffering, however, had already been ongoing for many years prior to the war.  Or perhaps we should say, self–inflicted suffering.  Jewish behavior, attitudes, actions, and beliefs have been a constant source of conflict throughout the centuries—even through millennia.[3]  Jewish abrasiveness became particularly pressing by the late 18^th century, as was noted by many prominent critics, including Kant, Voltaire, Hegel, Fichte, and Herder.  By the mid-19^th century, the likes of Schopenhauer and Bruno Bauer were issuing scathing critiques.

A particularly disturbing situation, though, was developing in Russia.  By the late 1800s, Russia had some 5 million Jews within its borders, nearly all of whom lived in the so-called Pale of Settlement in the far west of the country; this represented about half of the global total of around 10 million Jews.  This large Jewish population was a disruptive and agitating force within Russia and hence earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reigned 1825 to 1855) and Alexander II (reigned 1855 to 1881).  By 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could make this observation about the Jews:

This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people (ein Blutegelvolk), a collective parasite (einzigen fressenden Parasiten), voracious, organized in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. …  Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united them [both].[4]

In 1881, a gang of anarchists known as Narodnaya Volya, which included a few Jews, succeeded in assassinating Alexander; this unleashed a series of anti-Jewish pogroms that persisted for decades.

By the late 1880s, American media was beginning to take notice of the Jewish situation in Russia—especially the New York Times.  A brief item from 1889 began with the question “How many Jews are there?” meaning, globally.  At a minimum, “the number of the ubiquitous race [is] 6,000,000.”  It then continues with a reference to Jewish suffering: “With the exception of half a million, they are all in a state of political bondage.”  Furthermore, “in Russia alone there were 4,000,000 of their race whose every step was dogged by that curse, religious hatred and persecution.”[5]  Here we find an early reference to (almost) six million suffering Jews.

Another short piece appeared in 1891 entitled “Russia’s Christianity: Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews.”  In a public lecture, Gottheil examined a number of facts “in relation to the treatment of Russia’s 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Jews by the Christian population.”  Notably, the population of Russian Jews, which was just 4 million two years earlier, was now as high as 6 million.  Gottheil then proceeds to quote a recent article by one E. B. Lanin, who said, “about six millions [sic] persecuted and miserable wretches remain steadfastly faithful to a religion that causes their life to be changed into a fiery furnace.”[6]  Prophetic, indeed.

Nearly a decade later, in June 1900, Rabbis Gottheil and Stephen Wise were the keynote speakers at a “Zionist mass meeting” in New York.  They were anxious to highlight Jewish suffering around the world to help make their case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Gottheil spoke generically of the “oppressed in Russia,” but Wise made the point explicit: “There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”[7]  Within a few years, the pogroms became increasingly intense, eventually leading to small-scale killings.  The so-called “Kishineff (or Kishinev) massacre” of 1903, in which all of 49 Jews were killed, became, for the first time, a “holocaust.”  The NYT quotes from an editorial of the Jewish Chronicle:

We charge the Russian Government with responsibility for the Kishineff massacre.  We say it is steeped to the eyes in the guilt of this holocaust.  (16 May, p. 1)

The editorial goes on to speak of how the Russian Jews are being “slowly annihilated” and subject to “the process of extermination.”  Such words obviously anticipate similar charges that would be leveled against the National Socialists some four decades later.

Two years later, we read that the “holocaust” is still ongoing.  A short item of 1905 is headlined “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian holocaust is to continue.”[8]  Also that year, the NYT reported, once again, on “our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia.”[9]  The following year, in 1906, we read of “startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews”; it is a “horrifying picture” of “renewed massacres” and “systematic and murderous extermination.”[10]  At this point, one is tempted to ask: What is it about the Jews, such that they are subject to such continual and horrific abuse?  And furthermore, why isn’t the figure of six million, first reported back in 1890, growing any larger?  Is it now, somehow, fixed at six million?  If so, why?

In 1910, we find “Russian Jews in sad plight,” and we are saddened over “the systematic, relentless, quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls.”[11]  In 1911, the New York Times reported that “the 6,000,000 Jews of Russia are singled out for systematic oppression and for persecution by due process of law.”[12]  And yet things got worse still:

That Russia is pursuing a definite anti-Jewish policy, that the condition of the Jews in Russia is worse now than it ever was before, will be gathered from the following extracts… [T]he restrictive laws now in existence…intensif[y] the oppression of the Jews, and by which it is making the 6,000,000 Jews a people economically exhausted—a people without any rights at all.  (10 December, p. SM8)

We need to remind ourselves that the leading Russians had a very low opinion of the Jews, and felt themselves fully justified in any recrimination.  Sometimes their words were shocking.  Russian prime minister Pyotr Stolypin wrote the following in 1911:

It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures, who cannot enter into our concept of human nature.  We can observe them the way we observe and study animals, we can feel disgust for them or hostility, the way we do for the hyena, the jackal, or the spider, but to speak of hatred for them would raise them to our level. …  Only by disseminating in the popular consciousness the concept that the creature of the Jewish race is not the same as other people, but an imitation of a human, with whom there can be no dealings—only that can gradually heal the national organism and weaken the Jewish nation so it will no longer be able to do harm, or will completely die out.  History knows of many extinct tribes.  Science must put, not the Jewish race, but the character of Jewry into such condition as will make it perish.[13]

Just a few months later, Stolypin was assassinated by a Jewish radical, Dmitri Bogrov.

I emphasize that it was not only the New York Times that was reporting on the six million suffering Hebrews.  Zionist Jews were repeating the same lines to their own people.  Speaking at the 1911 Zionist Congress, Max Nordau said the following:

Virtuous governments…lay the groundwork with their own hands for the destruction of six million persons, and no one except the victims themselves raises his voice against this—even though this, of course, is an infinitely greater crime than any war which as yet has never destroyed six million human lives.[14]

Thus we find repeated linkage, over a period of many years, of “six million,” “extermination,” and “holocaust” with respect to the Jews.  History indeed repeats itself.

Into the Great War

It seems, then, that our holocaust journey is even more intriguing than I indicated above.  The first Jewish holocaust occurred in Russia, running, at a minimum, from the years 1903 through 1911.  We don’t know how many Jews were killed in that period, but it was unquestionably small, given the over-emphasis on relatively minor events in which, for example, 49 were killed (see Andrew Joyce’s “Revisiting the Nineteenth-Century Russian Pogroms”).  Based on scattered reports, the total would have been on the order of a few thousand, at most.  And yet, the figure of 6 million recurred repeatedly, as a kind of token of mass Jewish suffering.  This set the stage for the second holocaust, of World War One, as I am about to explain.  And this, of course, leaves “the” Holocaust of World War II as holocaust number three.  A rather remarkable turn of events, and one not likely to be covered in your local history class.

As I stated above, World War I began in July 1914.  Already in December of that year we were reading accounts of mass suffering of Jews—and we can guess the number.  The New York Times reported as follows:

Appeal for aid for Jews: American Committee tells of Suffering Due to War.  The American Jewish Relief Committee called a conference…to consider the plight of more than 6,000,000 Jews who live within the war zone.  (2 December, p. 12)

The “war zone” in question was the Eastern Front, which ran through parts of present-day Poland, Ukraine, Austria, and Hungary, as well as portions of western Russia.  Just a month later, the Times reported,

In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the very heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of sorrow and suffering.  (14 January, p. 3)

A year later, we read that the head of a Jewish aid society has declared that “even the wrongs of the Belgians could not be compared to the outrages heaped upon the Polish Jews. ‘Nearly six million Jews are ruined, in the greatest moral and material misery. … And the world is silent’.”[15]  And in case we had forgotten, the Times would soon remind us that, indeed, this horrific situation constituted…a holocaust.  In October, a Jewish organization—The Joint Distribution Committee of Funds for Jewish War Sufferers—launched a $10 million appeal with these words:

The new campaign is the largest ever undertaken by Jews of the United States. …  Dr. Judah Magnes has been enabled [to ascertain] the present needs of the Jewish people in Europe, who have fallen under the blight of the world holocaust.  (29 October, p. E9)

Into 1917, the war evolved into a sort of stalemate, with the infamous trenches defining much of the front.  Despite growing fatalities on all sides, the number of suffering Jews stayed remarkably constant: “Six millions [sic] of Jews are living in lands where they are oppressed, exploited, crushed, and robbed of every inalienable human right.”[16]  By September of that year, the Times was reporting on an appeal for an aid fund,

to alleviate the suffering of Jews in the European war zones…[whose] suffering is unparalleled [!] in history. … [W]omen, children, and babies must be saved if the Jewish race is to survive the terrible holocaust…  (24 September, p. 20)

Once again, we see the repeated connection between ‘holocaust’ and ‘six million’ suffering Jews.

By mid-October of 1918, it was becoming clear—at least to the crew at the New York Times—that the war was about to end.  Hence they excitedly reported on an astonishing “$1 billion fund to rebuild Jewry” (18 October, p. 12).[17]  As it turns out, of those “six millions” of Jews who were suffering, starving, and dying in the “holocaust”—well, miraculously, all of them survived.  And they needed cash.  “Six million souls will need help to resume normal life when war is ended,” we read.  Send your checks now.

Interwar Holocaust?

No sooner had World War I ended than our ever-industrious Jewish Lobby went to work again, conjuring up yet more Jewish suffering.  In September 1919—less than one year after the war—the New York Times was reporting on renewed mass Jewish suffering, now in Poland and Ukraine.  In a story headlined “Ukrainian Jews Aim to Stop Pogroms,” we read, with by now little surprise, that “6,000,000 are in peril.”  Apparently half of these are in Poland, half in Ukraine, but “all of whom are in need of assistance from America.”  According to the story, President Wilson had recently issued a statement of concern in which he said:

This fact that the population of 6,000,000 souls in Ukrainia and Poland have received notice through action and by word that they are going to be completely exterminated—this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the day.  (8 September, p. 6)

Assuredly so.

Lest we might forget, this situation was quickly described as, yes, a “holocaust.”  In one of the most craven and pandering articles ever to be penned by a non-Jewish politician, former New York governor Martin Glynn published an essay for American Hebrew in October 1919, titled “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!”  It reads, in part:

From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. … With them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. …  In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate. …  Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. …  In this threatened ho­locaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction. …  And so in the spirit that turned the poor widow’s votive offering of copper into silver … the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving $35 million in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women.  Six million men and women are dying…  [italics added]

A truly appalling bit of servility, if there ever was one.  Clearly Glynn owed much to his Hebrew supporters.

The very next month, the NYT reported on prominent Jewish banker Felix Warburg, who had recently traveled to Europe to witness the suffering firsthand:

The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry, and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation, and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population on the earth.  (12 November, p. 7)

The storyline persisted in subsequent years:

*  April 1920:  “Mr. Louis Marshall declared that typhus menaced 6,000,000 Jews of Europe.”[18]

*  May 1920:  “Hunger, cold rags, desolation, disease, death—six million human beings without food, shelter, clothing…”

*  July 1921:  “Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre” (again!).

*  September 1924:  “1,235 Pogroms” in the Soviet Union; “The Jewish population, which number in Russia over 6,000,000, live scattered. …  [Events] have subjected the Jews to greater suffering than any other section of the Russian population.”

And so on.  But the point is proven.  Through a long series of incredible, unbelievable circumstances, six million Jews were perpetually suffering through various incarnations of a “holocaust” for decades prior to World War II.  Such references tapered off through the 1930s, but accelerated again with the approach of the second great war.  Several mentions of the “six million” appeared between 1936 and 1939.  With the onset of war in September 1939, the predictions became explicit.  In June of 1940, leading Zionist Nahum Goldmann was quoted as saying “Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victory of the Nazis should be final.”[19]  What an astonishing prediction!  How could Goldmann have known, at that early date, of the final death toll?  Jewish foresight never fails to amaze.

Conclusions

The facts here are clear and indisputable.  The reader is strongly encouraged to look up a few of the old New York Times citations that I mentioned, to confirm that the words are really there.  Most any online search engine or a local library research database can find them.  They are highly damning.  Our friends in the Jewish Lobby have no plausible reply, no reasonable defense, no good explanation; they can only stifle the whole discussion.  And this is precisely what they do.

There are clear lessons here for history.  If six million Jews suffered, but very few died, in the first holocaust (Russia), and if another six million suffered, but very few died, in the second holocaust (World War I), then we might reasonably infer, by inductive logic, that perhaps the alleged toll in the third Holocaust (World War II) was—let us say—not quite right.  Especially so, given the facts that I mentioned at the very start of this essay.  We can also plausibly infer that the claimed ‘six million’ figure of World War II did not come from a body count—it didn’t—but rather is a symbolic number, a token, used over many years, to represent mass Jewish suffering.  As an actual death toll, it could be far removed from reality.

And if all this is true, then there are profound consequences.  First, we must significantly rewrite our history of the mid-twentieth-century; second, we have to hold accountable all those historians and politicians, Jewish or otherwise, who foisted upon us a distorted picture of human suffering; and third, we need to recompensate Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and all those who were extorted into paying billions in “reparations” to Israel and global Jewry.  It is not hard to find the money; American Jews alone own or control perhaps $50 trillion in assets, and this would go a long way toward a restorative justice.[20]  We have the means.  We need only muster the will to act.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20^th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

---

[1] Those alleged gas chambers that they show to tourists in Auschwitz Main Camp, Majdanek, and Dachau are postwar reconstructions, and could never have functioned as mass killing sites using poison gas.  See my books for details.

[2] As quoted in Fay’s “classic study” of the war, The Origins of the World War (1928), p. 552.

[3] For this story, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[4] Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.

[5] 10 February, p. 14.

[6] 26 January, p. 8.

[7] 11 June, p. 7.  Incidentally, the New York Times was, by this time, formally a Jewish newspaper; Adolph Ochs purchased the firm in 1896.  It has retained Jewish ownership and management ever since.

[8] 10 November, p. 2.

[9] 23 March, p. 7.

[10] 25 March, p. SM6.

[11] 11 April, p. 18.

[12] 31 October, p. 5.

[13] Cited in Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (1994), p. 6.

[14] Cited in Herzl Year Book, vol. 2 (1959), p. 156.  The chapter author explicitly comments on Nordau’s “astonishing accuracy.”

[15] 28 February, p. 8.

[16] 22 January, p. 6.

[17] In present-day dollars, this would come to almost $20 billion.

[18] Notably, it was typhus that likely produced most Jewish fatalities during WW2.

[19] 25 June, p. 4.

[20] See my essay, “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (2019).  But the situation has become even more extreme due to the Covid pandemic, during which Jewish tech billionaires prospered immensely.  Just the five wealthiest American Jews—Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg—now own over half a trillion dollars.  We need to contemplate this for a moment:  five individual men, five Jews, collectively own more than $500 billion.  When we then consider the total wealth of the six million or so American Jews, it is quite easy to reach $50 trillion, or more.