<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

July 4 2002 at 9:57 PM

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

2/12/98 Stefan Lemieszewski

This is another post in the series along the theme that: " Corrupt elites
prosper at the people's expense with the aid of the IMF, World Bank and
'shock therapy' policies of Western advisors under the guise of free-trade
or democratic or market-reforms."

In his article, "Communique of American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee,"
in the Dec-10-1995 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly, Eugene M. Iwanciw wrote:

"The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18
and reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the
interest of European stability and thus also American security. It welcomed
the evident improvement in the American-Ukrainian relationship, especially
the recognition by the U.S. government of Ukraine's geopolitical
significance. It also endorsed strongly the reform efforts being pursued by
the Ukrainian government in order to transform Ukraine into a stable
democracy based on a free market economy."

The American participants of the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee
(AUAC) sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) included:

Zbigniew Brzezinski (CSIS counselor),
Richard Burt (chairman, International Equity Partners),
Frank Carlucci (chairman, Carlyle Group),
Gen. John Galvin (dean, Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy),
Michael Jordan (chairman and CEO, Westinghouse Electric Corp),
Henry Kissinger (chairman, Kissinger Associates) and
George Soros (chairman, Soros Foundations).

Previous American advisers of AUAC included Malcolm Steve Forbes, Jr.
(editor-in-chief, Forbes magazine), whose magazine gained some notoriety
recently for publishing the "Tinderbox" article by Paul Klebnikov, and
Dwayne Orville Andreas (chairman and CEO, Archer Daniels Midland Co.), whose
company pleaded guilty last month for anti-trust and price-fixing
violations and agreed to pay a $100 million fine---the largest fine of its
kind ever.

Also in a previous post it was indicated that at least six of the current
seven American members of AUAC are also members of the Council of Foreign
Relations (CFR), including George Soros.

Previous posts included excerpts on Soros from the 23-page article titled,
"The world according to Soros" written by Connie Bruck in the Jan. 23, 1995
issue of The New Yorker. It has also been reported that Soros has
contributed $15 million to groups advocating an array of alternatives to the
Cinton administration's "War on Drugs," including a personal donation of
$350,000 to fund a "medical marijuana" ballot initiative in California and
a personal donation of $100,000 for a similar ballot initiative in Arizona.
The following Nov. 1, 1996 article by the Executive Intelligence Review
(EIR) provides additional background information on George Soros, one of the
American members of AUAC.

Stefan Lemieszewski

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

by William Engdahl

EIR Investigation
Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), November 1, 1996

The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1 by EIR's
bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled "A Profile of Mega-Speculator George
Soros." Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich,
Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson.


Time magazine has characterized financier George Soros as a "modern-day
Robin Hood," who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of eastern
Europe and Russia. It claimed that Soros makes huge financial gains by
speculating against western central banks, in order to use his profits to
help the emerging post-communist economies of eastern Europe and former
Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an "Open Society." The
Time statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely
inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich western countries, and uses his
profits to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of
"philanthropy." His goal is to loot wherever and however he can. Soros has
been called the master manipulator of "hit-and-run capitalism."

As we shall see, what Soros means by "open," is a society that allows him
and his financial predator friends to loot the resources and precious assets
of former Warsaw Pact economies. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs or
Sweden's Anders Aslund and their economic shock therapy into these
economies, Soros lays the groundwork for buying up the assets of whole
regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices.

The man who broke the Bank of England?

An examination of Soros's secretive financial network is vital to understand
the true dimension of the "Soros problem" in eastern Europe and other nations.

Following the crisis of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of September
1992, when the Bank of England was forced to abandon efforts to stabilize
the pound sterling, a little-known financial figure emerged from the
shadows, to boast that he had personally made over $1 billion in speculation
against the British pound. The speculator was the Hungarian-born George
Soros, who spent the war in Hungary under false papers working for the Nazi
government, identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow
Jews. Soros left Hungary after the war, and established American citizenship
after some years in London. Today, Soros is based in New York, but that
tells little, if anything, of who and what he is.

Following his impressive claims to possession of a "Midas touch," Soros has
let his name be publicly used in a blatant attempt to influence world
financial markets---an out-of-character act for most financial investors,
who prefer to take advantage of situations not yet discovered by rivals, and
keep them secret. Soros the financier is as much a political animal, as a
financial speculator.

Soros proclaimed in March 1993, with great publicity, that the price of gold
was about to rise sharply; he said that he had just gotten "inside
information" that China was about to buy huge sums of gold for its booming
economy. Soros was able to trigger a rush into buying gold, which caused
prices to rise more than 20% over four months, to the highest level since
1991. Typically for Soros, once the fools rushed in to push prices higher,
Soros and his friend Sir James Goldsmith secretly began selling their gold
at a huge profit.

Then, in early June 1993, Soros proclaimed his intent to force a sell-off in
German government bonds in favor of the French, in an open letter to London
Times Financial Editor Anatole Kaletsky, in which Soros proclaimed, "Down
with the D-Mark!" Soros has at various times attacked the currencies of
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mexico, coming into newly opened
financial markets which have little experience with foreign investors, let
alone ones with large funds like Soros. Soros begins buying stocks or bonds
in the local market, leading others to naively suppose that he knows
something they do not. As with gold, when the smaller investors begin to
follow Soros, driving prices of stocks or whatever higher, Soros begins to
sell to the eager new buyers, cashing in his 40% or 100% profits, then
exiting the market, and often, the entire country, to seek another target
for his speculation. This technique gave rise to the term "hit and run."
What Soros always leaves behind, is a collapsed local market and financial
ruin of national investors.

The secret of the Quantum Fund NV

Soros is the visible side of a vast and nasty secret network of private
financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal
families of Europe, centered in the British House of Windsor. This network,
called by its members the Club of Isles, was built upon the wreckage of the
British Empire after World War II.

Rather than use the powers of the state to achieve their geopolitical goals,
a secret cross-linked holding of private financial interests, tied to the
old aristocratic oligarchy of western Europe, was developed. It was in many
ways modeled on the 17th-century British and Dutch East India Companies. The
heart of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British
Empire, the City of London. Soros is one of what in medieval days were
called Hofjuden, the "Court Jews," who were deployed by the aristocratic

The most important of such "Jews who are not Jews," are the Rothschilds, who
launched Soros's career. They are members of the Club of the Isles and
retainers of the British royal family. This has been true since Amschel
Rothschild sold the British Hessian troops to fight against George
Washington during the American Revolution.

Soros is American only in his passport. He is a global financial operator,
who happens to be in New York, simply because "that's where the money is,"
as the bank robber Willy Sutton once quipped, when asked why he always
robbed banks. Soros speculates in world financial markets through his
offshore company, Quantum Fund NV, a private investment fund, or "hedge
fund." His hedge fund reportedly manages some $11-14 billion of funds on
behalf of its clients, or investors---one of the most prominent of whom is,
according to Soros, Britain's Queen Elizabeth, the wealthiest person in Europe.

The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles,
in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true
nature of his investors and what he does with their money.

In order to avoid U.S. government supervision of his financial activities,
something normal U.S.-based investment funds must by law agree to in order
to operate, Soros moved his legal headquarters to the Caribbean tax haven of
Curacao. The Netherlands Antilles has repeatedly been cited by the Task
Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) as one of the world's most important centers for
laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug
traffic. It is a possession of the Netherlands.

Soros has taken care that the none of the 99 individual investors who
participate in his various funds is an American national. By U.S. securities
law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 highly wealthy individuals,
so-called "sophisticated investors." By structuring his investment company
as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny.

Soros himself is not even on the board of Quantum Fund. Instead, for legal
reasons, he serves the Quantum Fund as official "investment adviser,"
through another company, Soros Fund Management, of New York City. If any
demand were to be made of Soros to reveal the details of Quantum Fund's
operations, he is able to claim he is "merely its investment adviser." Any
competent police investigator looking at the complex legal structure of
Soros's businesses would conclude that there is prima facie evidence of
either vast money laundering of illicit funds, or massive illegal tax
evasion. Both may be true.

To make it impossible for U.S. tax authorities or other officials to look
into the financial dealings of his web of businesses, the board of directors
of Quantum Fund NV also includes no American citizens. His directors are
Swiss, Italian, and British financiers.

George Soros is part of a tightly knit financial mafia---"mafia," in the
sense of a closed masonic-like fraternity of families pursuing common aims.
Anyone who dares to criticize Soros or any of his associates, is immediately
hit with the charge of being "anti-Semitic"----a criticism which often
silences or intimidates genuine critics of Soros's unscrupulous operations.
The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith considers it a top priority to
"protect" Soros from the charges of "anti-Semites" in Hungary and elsewhere
in Central Europe, according to ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. The
ADL's record of service to the British oligarchy has been amply documented
by EIR (e.g. The Ugly Truth About the Anti-Defamation League [Washington,
D.C., Executive Intelligence Review: 1992]).

According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros's circle
includes indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive Marc Rich of
Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv; secretive Israeli arms and commodity dealer
Shaul Eisenberg, and "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, both linked to the financial side
of the Israeli Mossad; and, the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.

Understandably, Soros and the Rothschild interests prefer to keep their
connection hidden far from public view, so as to obscure the well-connected
friends Soros enjoys in the City of London, the British Foreign Office,
Israel, and the U.S. financial establishment. The myth, therefore, has been
created, that Soros is a lone financial investment "genius" who, through his
sheer personal brilliance in detecting shifts in markets, has become one of
the world's most successful speculators. According to those who have done
business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move without
sensitive insider information.

On the board of directors of Soros's Quantum Fund N.V. is Richard Katz, a
Rothschild man who is also on the board of the London N.M. Rothschild and
Sons merchant bank, and the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A. of Milan.
Another Rothschild family link to Soros's Quantum Fund is Quantum board
member Nils O. Taube, the partner of the London investment group St. James
Place Capital, whose major partner is Lord Rothschild. London Times
columnist Lord William Rees-Mogg is also on the board of Rothschild's St.
James Place Capital.

A frequent business partner of Soros in various speculative deals, including
in the 1993 gold manipulation, although not on the Quantum Fund directly, is
the Anglo-French speculator Sir James Goldsmith, a cousin of the Rothschild

>From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969,
he owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking
network. Soros worked in New York in the 1960s for a small private bank
close to the Rothschilds, Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, Inc., a banking family
which represented Rothschild interests in Germany during Bismarck's time. To
this day, A. & S. Bleichroeder, Inc. remains the Principal Custodian, along
with Citibank, of funds of Soros's Quantum Fund. George C. Karlweiss, of
Edmond de Rothschild's Switzerland-based Banque Privee SA in Lugano, as well
as of the scandal-tainted Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich, gave Soros financial
backing. Karlweiss provided some of the vital initial capital and investors
for Soros's Quantum Fund.

Union Banque Privee and the 'Swiss connection'

Another member of the board of Soros's Quantum Fund is the head of one of
the most controversial Swiss private banks, Edgar de Picciotto, who has been
called "one of the cleverest bankers in Geneva"---and is one of the most
scandal-tainted. De Picciotto, from an old Portuguese Jewish trading family,
who was born in Lebanon, is head of the Geneva private bank CBI-TDB Union
Bancaire Privee, a major player in the gold and offshore hedge funds
business. Hedge funds have been identified by international police agencies
as the fastest-growing outlet for illegal money laundering today.

De Picciotto is a longtime friend and business associate of banker Edmond
Safra, also born in Lebanon, whose family came from Aleppo, Syria, and who
now controls the Republic Bank of New York. Republic Bank has been
identified in U.S. investigations into Russian organized crime, as the bank
involved in transferring billions of U.S. Federal Reserve notes from New
York to organized crime-controlled Moscow banks, on behalf of Russian
organized crime figures. Safra is under investigation by U.S. and Swiss
authorities for laundering Turkish and Columbian drug money. In 1990,
Safra's Trade Development Bank (TDB) of Geneva was merged with de
Picciotto's CBI to create the CBI-TDB Union Banque Privee. The details of
the merger are shrouded in secrecy to this day. As part of the deal, de
Picciotto became a board member of American Express Bank (Switzerland) SA of
Geneva, and two American Express Bank of New York executives sit on the
board of de Picciotto's Union Banque Privee. Safra had sold his Trade
Development Bank to American Express, Inc. in the 1980s. Henry Kissinger
sits on the board of American Express, Inc., which has repeatedly been
implicated in international money-laundering scandals.

De Picciotto's start as a Geneva banker came from Nicholas Baring of the
London Barings Bank, who tapped de Picciotto to run the bank's secret Swiss
bank business. Barings has for centuries been private banker to the British
royal family, and since the bank's collapse in March 1995, has been
overhauled by the Dutch ING Bank, which is reported to be a major
money-laundering institution.

De Picciotto is also a longtime business partner of Venetian businessman
Carlo De Benedetti, who recently was forced to resign as head of Olivetti
Corp. Both persons sit on the board of the Societe Financiere de Geneve
investment holding company in Geneva. De Benedetti is under investigation in
Italy for suspicion of triggering the collapse of Italy's Banco Ambrosiano
in the early 1980s.The head of that bank, Roberto Calvi, was later found
hanging from the London Blackfriar's Bridge, in what police believe was a
masonic ritual murder.

De Picciotto and his Union Banque Privee have been implicated in numerous
drug and illegal money-laundering operations. In November 1994, U.S. federal
agents arrested a senior official of de Picciotto's Geneva bank,
Jean-Jacques Handali, along with two other UBP officials, on charges of
leading a multimillion-dollar drug-money-laundering ring. According to the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Handali and Union Banque Privee were the
"Swiss connection" in an international drug-money-laundering ring tied to
Colombian and Turkish cocaine and heroin organizations. A close business and
political associate of de Picciotto is a mysterious arm dealer, Helmut
Raiser, who is linked in business dealings with reputed Russian organized
crime kingpin Grigori Luchansky, who controls the Russian and Swiss holding
company Nordex Group.

Another director of Soros's Quantum Fund is Isodoro Albertini, owner of the
Milan stock brokerage firm Albertini and Co. Beat Notz of the Geneva
Banque Worms is another private banker on the board of Soros's Quantum Fund,
as is Alberto Foglia, who is chief of the Lugano, Switzerland Banca del
Ceresio. Lugano, just across the Swiss border from Milan, is notorious as
the financial secret bank haven for Italian organized crime families,
including the heroin mafia behind the 1980s "Pizza Connection" case. The
Banca del Ceresio has been one of the secret Swiss banks identified in the
recent Italian political corruption scandals as the repository of bribe
funds of several Italian politicians now in prison.

The sponsorship of the Rothschilds

Soros's relation to the Rothschild finance circle represents no ordinary or
casual banking connection. It goes a long way to explain the extraordinary
success of a mere private speculator, and Soros's uncanny ability to "gamble
right" so many times in such high-risk markets. Soros has access to the
"insider track" in some of the most important government and private
channels in the world.

Since World War II, the Rothschild family, at the heart of the financial
apparatus of the Club of the Isles, has gone to great lengths to create a
public myth about its own insignificance. The family has spent significant
sums cultivating a public image as a family of wealthy, but quiet,
"gentlemen," some of whom prefer to cultivate fine French wines, some of
whom are devoted to charity.

Since British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote his famous November
1917 letter to Lord Rothschild, expressing official British government
backing for establishment of a Palestinian national home for the Jewish
people, the Rothschilds were intimately involved in the creation of Israel.
But behind their public facade of a family donating money for projects such
as planting trees in the deserts of Israel, N.M. Rothschild of London is at
the center of various intelligence operations, and more than once has been
linked to the more unsavory elements of international organized crime. The
family prefers to keep such links at arm's length, and away from its London
headquarters, via its lesser-known outposts such as their Zurich Rothschild
Bank AG and Rothschild Italia of Milan, the bank of Soros partner Richard Katz.

N.M. Rothschild is considered by City of London sources to be one of the
most influential parts of the British intelligence establishment, tied to
the Thatcher "free market" wing of the Tory Party. Rothschild and Sons made
huge sums managing for Thatcher the privatization of billions of dollars of
British state industry holdings during the 1980s, and today, for John
Major's government. Rothschilds is also at the very heart of the world gold
trade, being the bank at which twice daily the London Gold Fix is struck by
a group of the five most influential gold trade banks. Gold constitutes a
major part of the economy of drug dealings globally.

N.M. Rothschild and Sons is also implicated in some of the filthiest
drugs-for-weapons secret intelligence operations. Because it is connected to
the highest levels of the British intelligence establishment, Rothschilds
managed to evade any prominent mention of its complicity in one of the more
sordid black covert intelligence networks, that of the Bank of Credit and
Commerce International (BCCI). Rothschilds was at the center of the
international web of money-laundering banks used during the 1970s and 1980s
by Britain's MI-6 and the networks of Col. Oliver North and George Bush, to
finance such projects as the Nicaraguan Contras.

On June 8, 1993 the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee
on Banking, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex.), made a speech charging that the
U.S. government, under the previous Bush and Reagan administrations, had
systematically refused to prosecute the BCCI, and that the Department of
Justice had repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congressional
investigations of both the BCCI scandal and what Gonzalez claims is the
closely related scandal of the Atlanta, Georgia Banca Nationale del Lavoro,
which was alleged to have secured billions in loans from the Bush
administration to Saddam Hussein, just prior to the Gulf War of 1990-91.

Gonzalez charged that the Bush administration had "a Justice Department that
I say, and I repeat, has been the most corrupt, most unbelievably corrupt
justice system that I have seen in the 32 years I have been in the Congress."

The BCCI violated countless laws, including laundering drug money, financing
illegal arms traffic, and falsifying bank records. In July 1991, New York
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced a grand jury indictment
against BCCI, charging it with having committed "the largest bank fraud in
world financial history. BCCI operated as a corrupt criminal organization
throughout its entire 19-year history."

The BCCI had links directly into the Bush White House. Saudi Sheik Kamal
Adham, a BCCI director and former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence when
George Bush was head of the CIA, was one of the BCCI shareholders indicted
in the United States. Days after his indictment, former top Bush White House
aide Edward Rogers went to Saudi Arabia as a private citizen to sign a
contract to represent Sheikh Adham in the United States.

--- continued in part 2 ---
--- continued from part 1 ---

But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press
investigation, was that the Rothschild group was at the heart of the vast
illegal web of BCCI. The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing
director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement
SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in
London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was
also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked
to Nordex.

Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank,
which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq
prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with
the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice president, conduited funds to
Helmut Raiser's Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the
CondorII missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq
War. Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank,
the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport,
was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North's Contra
drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as
one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.

Rich, Reichmann, and Soros's Israeli links

According to reports of former U.S. State Department intelligence officers
familiar with the Soros case, Soros's Quantum Fund amassed a war chest of
well over $10 billion, with the help of a powerful group of "silent"
investors who let Soros deploy the capital to demolish European monetary
stability in September 1992.

Among Soros's silent investors, these sources say, are the fugitive metals
and oil trader Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland; and Shaul Eisenberg, a
decades-long member of Israeli Mossad intelligence, who functions as a major
arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East. Eisenberg was recently
banned from doing business in Uzbekistan, where he had been accused by the
government of massive fraud and corruption. A third Soros partner is
Israel's "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, who served in London previously as Mossad
liaison to British intelligence.

Rich was one of the most active western traders in oil, aluminum, and other
commodities in the Soviet Union and Russia between 1989 and 1993. This, not
coincidentally, is just the period when Grigori Luchansky's Nordex Group
became a multibillion-dollar company selling Russian oil, aluminum, and
other commodities.

Canadian real estate entrepreneur Paul Reichmann, formerly of Olympia and
York notoriety, a Hungarian-born Jew like Soros, is a business partner in
Soros's Quantum Realty, a $525-million real estate investment fund.

The Reichmann tie links Soros as well with Henry Kissinger and former Tory
Foreign Minister Lord Carrington (who is also a member of Kissinger
Associates, Inc. of New York). Reichmann sits with both Kissinger and
Carrington on the board of the influential British-Canadian publishing
group, Hollinger, Inc. Hollinger owns a large number of newspapers in
Canada and the United States, the London Daily Telegraph, and the largest
English-language daily in Israel, the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger has been
attacking President Clinton and the Middle East peace process ever since
Clinton's election in November 1992.

Soros and geopolitics

Soros is little more than one of several significant vehicles for economic
and financial warfare by the Club of the Isles faction. Because his
affiliations to these interests have not previously been spotlighted, he
serves extremely useful functions for the oligarchy, as in 1992 and 1993,
when he launched his attack on the European Rate Mechanism.

Although Soros's speculation played a role in finally taking the British
pound out of the ERM currency group entirely, it would be a mistake to view
that action as "anti-British." Soros went for the first time to London,
where he studied under Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek at the London
School of Economics.

Soros's business ties to Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Rothschild place him
in the inner circles of the Thatcher wing of the British establishment. By
helping the "anti-Europe" Thatcherites pull Britain out of the ERM in
September 1992 (and making more than $1 billion in the process at British
taxpayer expense), Soros helped the long-term goal of the Thatcherites in
weakening continental Europe's economic stability. Since 1904 , it has been
British geopolitical strategy to prevent by all means any successful
economic linkage between western continental European economies, especially
that of Germany, with Russia and the countries of eastern Europe.

Soros's personal outlook is consonant with that of the Thatcher wing of the
Tory Party, those who three years ago launched the "Germany, the Fourth
Reich" hate campaign against unified Germany, comparing Chancellor Helmut
Kohl with Adolf Hitler. Soros is personally extremely anti-German. In his
191 autobiography, Underwriting Democracy, Soros warned that a reunited
Germany would "upset the balance of Europe .... It is easy to see how the
interwar scenario could be replayed. A united Germany becomes the strongest
economic power and develops Eastern Europe as its Lebensraum ... a potent
witches' brew." Soros's recent public attacks on the German economy and the
deutsche mark are fundamentally motivated by this geopolitical view.

Soros is quite close to the circles of George Bush in the U.S. intelligence
community and finance. His principal bank custodian, and reputed major
lender in the 1992 assault on Europe's ERM, is Citicorp NA, the nation's
largest bank. Citicorp is more than a lending institution; it is a core part
of the American liberal establishment. In 1989, as it became clear that
German unification was a real possibility, a senior official at Citicorp, a
former adviser to Michael Dukakis's Presidential campaign, told a European
business associate that "German unity will be a disaster for our interests;
we must take measures to ensure a sharp D-Mark collapse on the order of 30%,
so that she will not have the capability to reconstruct East Germany into
the economic engine of a new Europe."

While Soros was calling on world investors to pull down the deutsche mark in
1993, he had been making a strong play in the French media, since late 1992,
to portray himself as a "friend of French interests." Soros is reported to
be close to senior figures of the French establishment, the Treasury, and in
particular, Bank of France head Jean-Claude Trichet. In effect, Soros is
echoing the old Entente Cordiale alliance against Germany, which helped
precipitate World War 1.

Soros admits that he survived in Nazi Hungary during the war, as a Jew, by
adopting what he calls a double personality. "I have lived with a double
personality practically all my life," Soros recently stated. "It started at
age fourteen in Hungary, when I assumed a false identity in order to escape
persecution as a Jew." Soros admitted in a radio interview that his father
gave him Nazi credentials in Hungary during the war, and he looted wealthy
Jewish estates. Further research showed that this operation was probably run
by the SS.

Soros did not leave the country until two years after the war. Though he and
his friends in the media are quick to attack any policy opponent of Soros,
especially in eastern Europe, as being "anti-Semitic," Soros's Jewish
identity apparently has only utilitarian value for him, rather than
providing moral foundations. In short, the young Soros was a cynical,
ambitious person, the ideal recruit for the British postwar intelligence

Soros savages eastern Europe

Soros has established no fewer than 19 "charitable" foundations across
eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has sponsored "peace"
concerts in former Yugoslavia with such performers as Joan Baez. He is
helping send young east Europeans to Oxford University. A model citizen, is
the image he broadcasts.

The reality is something else. Soros has been personally responsible for
introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe
since 1989. He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the
east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros
and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg,
to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices.
Here are illustrative case histories of Soros's eastern "charity":

Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the "reform"
communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders
of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to
well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his
"plan" for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the
government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said
Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural
enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits,
and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once thie were done, Soros promised
that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come
into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A
recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel
facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would
cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago,
the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to
sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.

Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who
had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading
to the takeover of that nation's economy by the cocaine trade. To further
his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan
Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach's work in Poland in 1989-90.

Soros boasts, "I established close personal contact with Walesa's chief
adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech]
Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation." He
worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold
Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz.
Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first
impose Sach's shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected
President, that "largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained
Balcerowicz as minister." Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while
industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial
output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge
unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he
insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with
the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion
makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy
in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros's shock therapy,
and hostile to all critics.

Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a
delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova
since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation. As
with his other "charitable foundations," this was a tax-free vehicle for
Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking
levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, but up
important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under
Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle. It
was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in
late 1991. Soros describes his effort: "I started mobilizing a group of
economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs,
with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He
suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David
Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I
wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of
the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael
Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel."

Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation
into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research
institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West. Yegor Gaidar and the
Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and
agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a
zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry
was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the
ruble went out of control.

The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc
Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard
currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last
year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry
had no way to compete. There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from
Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At
the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the
supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich's companies
have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in
the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.

Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the
former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter
of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to
secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan.
When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg,
his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused
a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central
Asian republics.

Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition
parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin
the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was
labeled an "anti-Semite," and in June 1993, he was forced out of the
governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked
circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros's close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom

Lighting the Balkan Fuse

In early 1990, in what was then still Yugoslavia, Soros's intervention with
shock therapy, in cooperation with the IMF, helped light the economic fuse
that led to the outbreak of war in June 1991. Soros boasted at that time,
"Yugoslavia is a particularly interesting case. Even as national rivalries
have brought the country to the verge of a breakup, a radical monetary
stabilization program, which was introduced on the same date as in
Poland---January 1, 1990-----has begun to change the political landscape.
The program is very much along the Polish lines, and it had greater initial
success. By the middle of the year, people were beginning to think Yugoslav

Soros is friends with former Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger,
the former U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and the patron of Serbian Communist
leader Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger is a past president of Kissinger
Associates, on whose board sits Lord Carrington, whose Balkan mediations
supported Serbian aggression into Croatia and Bosnia.

Today, Soros has established his Foundation centers in Bosnia, Croatia,
Slovenia, and a Soros Yugoslavia Foundation in Belgrade, Serbia. In Croatia,
he has tried to use his foundation monies to woo influential journalists or
to slander opponents of his shock therapy, by labeling them variously
"anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi." The head of Soros's Open Society
Fund---Croatia, Prof. Zarko Puhovski, is a man who has reportedly made a
recent dramatic conversion from orthodox Marxism to Soros's radical free
market. Only seven years ago, according to one of his former students, as
professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Puhovski attacked
students trying to articulate a critique of communism, by insisting, "It is
unprincipled to criticize Marxism from a liberal standpoint." His work for
the Soros Foundation in Zagreb has promoted an anti-nationalist "global
culture," hiring a network of anti-Croatian journalists to propagandize, in
effect, for the Serbian cause.

These examples can be elaborated for each of the other 19 locations across
eastern Europe where George Soros operates. The political agenda of Soros
and this group of financial "globalists" will create the conditions for a
new outbreak of war, even world war, if it continues to be tolerated.



 Respond to this message   
(Login IGORM)

The true story of Soros the Golem Executive

July 5 2002, 8:26 AM 


The true story of Soros the Golem Executive Intelligence Review SPECIAL REPORT April 1997. Selections by Peter Myers, July 31, 2001; minor update, January 22, 2002.

{p. 18} George Soros is not only one of the world's leading megaspeculators; throughout his entire life up to this day, he has served as an "errand boy" for the Anglo-American monetarist establishment, running looting operations against the nations of Eastern Europe, as well as attacks against the sovereignty of nations ... in September 1992, "in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the Bank of England," Soros destroyed the British pound and the Italian lira and made $12 billion in profit from his speculation, as he later bragged in an interview. ...

{p. 19} Using leveraged loans, Soros raised $40 billion to outspend the Germans. How he was able to do this, remains a mystery: first, there was the fact that a speculator like Soros is able to borrow on a margin of 5%, borrowing $1 billion for just $50 million. Second, Soros had ties to those very British oligarchic circles (epitomized by the Rothschilds) which wanted to undermine the Bundesbank, at the same time that they considered the pound sterling to be overvalued. Third, Soros had extensive lines of highly leveraged credit with banks like Citibank N.A., which is one of two custodians of Quantum. And, fourth, U.S. intelligence sources charge that Soros has access to a 'hot money" crowd in Israel, politically associated with the Eretz Yisroel goals of Gen. Ariel Sharon. These provide some leads as to how Soros was able to beat the Bundesbank and destroy the ERM.

3. Soros the 'philanthropist' and his Open Society Fund

Soros is no Robin Hood. He has been using his largesse, especially since his $1-2-billion profit from devaluing the pound and lira, to spread the sort of von Hayek "free market" economics that has destroyed nations. The Open Society Fund, which was the first Soros foundation created in 1979, has, since December 1993, folded into the Open Society Institute-New York. This Institute, together with an Open Society Institute-Budapest formed in the same year, and now an Open Society Institute-Moscow, formed in 1995, are the sinews for 24 Soros national foundations in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as South Africa and Haiti. All of these foundations, of which George Soros is chairman, are dedicated to his concept of the open society and a "free market economy." As he puts it: "Open society does not preclude the pursuit of self-interest. On the contrary, in the absence of perfect knowledge, it is best left to the individual to define what his interests are, and it is best left to the market mechanism to reconcile those interests." Total 1994 expenditures for all Soros foundations were approximately $300 million. The OSI-New York is primus inter pares among Soros's various foundations. In September 1993, Soros appointed Aryeh Neier to be president of the OSI-New York. (For 12 years, Neier had been executive director of the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch, and before that, he worked for eight years as national director of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU.) ...

4. Spreading von Hayek's free market economics

Through his Open Society Foundations, whose activities we detail below, George Soros positioned himself, long before communism fell, as the man who, on behalf of Anglo-American banking interests and the IMF, tried to put into place the mechanism for the economic and political "transition" to occur in the Eastern European countries. He became a staunch advocate of the policy of "shock therapy," which was approved by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her close associate Sir George Bush, after the Berlin Wall had fallen. Along with former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. who is today North American chairman of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission; Citibank vice-chairman H. Anno Ruding, who was formerly with the IMF; and Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Soros had a big hand in creating the Polish model of "shock therapy." (As previously mentioned, Sachs drew Soros's attention through his work in implementing IMF-style "shock therapy" in Bolivia.) In his book, Underwriting Democracy, Soros sums up his experience with the Polish shock therapy model: "I considered it essential to demonstrate that the political transtormation could result in economic improvement. Poland was the place where this could be accomplished. I prepared the broad

{p. 20} outlines of a comprehensive economic program, It had three ingredients: monetary stabilization, structural changes. and debt reorganization. I argued that the three obJectives could he accomplished better in combination than separately ... I proposed a kind of macroeconomic debt for equity swap,, . . I showed the plan to Geremek and Professor Treziakowski, who headed the economic roundtable in the talks that preceded the transfer of power, and they were both enthusiastic. ... I joined forces with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University, who was advocating a similar program. and sponsored his work in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation ... The IMF approved and the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain in order to see real change. .. . Inflation has been reduced, but the outcome still hangs in the balance because structural adjustment is slow in coming. Production has fallen by 30%, but employment has fallen by 3%. This means the entrenched management of state enterprises is using the respite it gained from wage claims to improve its profit margins and keep the workers employed, There is an unholy alliance between management and labor that will be hard to break,"

Whether we look at Poland or at Hungary, Russia, or Ukraine - in each of those cases, Soros argued in favor of radical free market economy, privatization. and IMF conditionalities so as to impose monetary discipline. ...

5. The Shatalin Plan: shock therapy approach for the former Soviet Union

With the backing of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Soros reached the height of his inf1uence in the Soviet Union when he was asked to assemble a team- including Jeffrey Sachs and Romano Prodi of Italy - to critique the Shatalin Plan, which was based upon IMF-style "shock therapy." "I was a great supporter of the so-called Shatalin Plan," Soros writes in Soros on Soros. "...

{p. 21} If Gorhachov had accepted the plan, he would have remained in power and the Soviet Union could have been reformed, instead of disintegrating."

In Underwriting Democracy, Soros said of the So-

{p. 22} viet Union's heavy-industry sector: "We may view the gigantic hydroelectric dams, the steel plants, the marble halls of the Moscow subway, and the skyscrapers of Stalinist architecture as so many pyramids built by a modern pharaoh." In a Jan. 4, 1993 commentary in the Washingtan Post, Soros harped on this monetarist theme:

"... The social safety net would also provide a powerful incentive to shut down loss-making enterprises. Factories could be idled and the raw materials and energy that go into production could be sold for more than the output."

Thus, Soros proposed shutting down the entire military-industrial base of the former Soviet Union in order to sell its energy and raw material inputs cheaply abroad, in exchange for a few crusts of bread. ... Since his proposal that Russia unload its raw materials and energy, through such Soros allies as Marc Rich - fugitive financier in Switzerland - Russian raw materials ranging from gold to aluminum have been looted, along with energy resources. In fact, Rich dumped so much Russian aluminum on the London Metal Exchange at one point, that he halved the price and still made a profit. This activity has fuelled the growth of the Russian Mafia.

6. The human rights mafia

One of George Soros's earliest experiments in "human rights" is a group known as Charter 77 (C77), which works closely with the Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA). ... C77 is part of the interconnected web of the "human rights" mafia, which in turn overlaps the drug legalization lobby, as exemplified in the case of Human Rights Watch, for which Soros is a prominent financier. Human Rights Watch (HRW), and its close ally, the British Foreign Office's Amnesty International, have established themselves as a tightly coordinated international hit squad against nations which oppose free trade and globalization; they package their attacks as campaigns against "human rights" violations. Human Rights Watch World Report 1995 launched a violent attack on those individuals and governments who share "a vision that equate[s] economic self-interest with the common good," and it labels that outlook a "mercantilist threat" to its concept of "human rights."

{p. 32} Chapter 4 The secret financial network behind George Soros by William Engdahl

The reality behind George Soros is something other than his carefully cultivated media image. ... George Soros is merely the visible face of a vast and very nasty network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe. ...

{p. 33} Rather than use the direct powers of state to achieve crucial geopolitical goals, a secret cross-linked vast holding of private financial interests, tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of Western Europe, was developed. It was in many ways modelled on the 17th-century British or Dutch East India Company models. According to knowledgeable sources, the center of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British Empire, the City of London. George Soros is a member of what were called in medieval days Hofjuden, or "Court Jews," who were and are run by this powerful, secretive network of aristocratic old families.

... Soros speculates in world financial markets through his secret offshore company, Quantum Fund N.V., a wholly private investment fond called a "hedge fund." ( Hedge funds have been identified by international police agencies as the fastest-growing outlet for illegal money laundering today.) ... Soros's Quantum Fund is registered in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, the Caribbean tax haven - so he avoids paying taxes, and also hides the nature of his investors, and what he does with their money. By moving his legal headquarters to Curacao. Soros was able to avoid the kind of U.S. government supervision of his financial activities, that any U.S.-based investment fund must agree to, in order to operate. The Netherland Antilles, a possession of the Kingdom of Holland, has repeatedly been cited by the International Task Force on Money Laundering of the OECD as one of the world's most impol-tant centers for laundering the illegal proceeds of the I.atin American cocaine and other drug traffic.

Soros has also taken care that none of the 99 individual investors who form his various funds, is an American national. By U.S. securities law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 investors of highly wealthy individuals, so-called "sophisticated investors." By structuring his investment company as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny. Soros himself is not even on the board of Quantum Fund. Instead, for legal reasons, he serves as official "Investment Advisor" to Quantum Fund N.V. through his company, Soros Fund Management, of 888 Seventh Avenue, New York City. If any demand be made of Soros to reveal the details of Quantum Fund, he can claim he is "merely its investment adviser."

... According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros is part of a circle which includes Marc Rich of Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv, the indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive; Shaul Eisenberg, the secretive Israeli arms and commodities dealer; and "Dirty Rafi" Eytan - both linked to the financial side of the Israeli Mossad, and to the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.

Understandably, Soros and the Rothschild interests prefer to keep their connection hidden far from public view, so as to obscure the powerful friends Soros can claim in the City of London, the British Foreign Office, Israel, and the U.S. financial establishment. The myth has therefore been created that Soros is a lone financial investment "genius" who, through sheer personal brilliance in detecting shitts in markets, has become one of the world' s most successful speculators. According to those who know him and have done business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move, whether against the pound or the franc or gold, without sensitive, high-level insider information. On the board of directors of Soros's Quantum Fund N.V. is Richard Katz. Katz is a Rothschild man who is also on the board of the London N.M. Rothschild & Sons merchant bank, and the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A. of Milan. Another Rothschild family link to Soros's Quantum Fund is Quantum board member Nils O. Taube. Taube is the partner of the London investment group, St. James Place Capital, whose major partner is Lord Rothschild. The London Times columnist, William Lord Rees-Mogg, is also on the board of Rothschild's St. James Place Capital.

{p. 34} Another member of the board of Soros's Quantum Fund is the head of one of the most controversial Swiss private banks, Edgar de Picciotto, who has been called "one of the cleverest bankers in Geneva," ... De Picciotto is a long-time friend and business associate of Edmund Safra, another Lebanese-born banker who controls the Republic Bank of New York. Safra's Republic Bank today has been identified in U.S. investigations into Russian organized crime, as the bank involved in transferring billions of U.S. Federal Reserve notes from New York to organized crime-controlled Moscow banks, on behalf of Russian organized crime. As well, Safra is under investigation by U.S. and Swiss authorities for laundering Turkish and Colombian drug money. ...

George Soros's relation to the secretive international Rothschild finance circle represents no ordinary or casual banking connection. It goes a long way toward explaining the extraordinary success of a mere private speculator, and Soros's uncanny ability to "gamble right" so many times in such high-risk markets. Soros has access to the "insider track" in some of the most important government and private channels in the world. Since the Second World War, the legendary Rothschild finance family, at the heart of the financial apparatus of the Club of the Isles, has gone to great lengths to mislead, to create for itself a public aura of insignificance, behind which stands one of the world's most powerful and murkiest financial combinations. The family has spent significant sums cultivating a public image as a family of wealthy but quiet "gentlemen," ...

{p. 35} Among other things, they have wished to become known, since 1948, as being devoted to the cause of the new state of Israel, playing on the world's outrage over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews during World War II. Indeed, since British Foreign secretary Arthur Balfour wrote his famous November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild expressing official British government backing for establishment in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jews, the Rothschilds have been intimately involved in the creation of Israel. It is no surprise, therefore, to find that today Soros and Rothschild have ties to Israeli intelligence, as well as to British and American.

But behind their public facade as a family donating money for useful projects such as planting trees in the deserts of Israel, N.M. Rothschild of London is at the center of various intelligence operations ...

N.M. Rothschild is considered by City of London insiders to be one of the most influential components of that part of the British Intelligence establishment tied to the Thatcher "free market" wing of the Tory Party. Rothschild & Sons made huge sums managing for Thatcher the privatization of billions of dollars of British state industry holdings during the 1980s, and today, for John Major's government. As well, Rothschilds is at the very heart of the world gold trade, being the bank at which, twice daily, the London Gold Fix is struck by a group of the five most influential gold trade banks. Gold forms a major part of the economy of drug dealings globally.

But N.M. Rothschild & Sons is also implicated in some of the filthiest drugs-for-weapons secret intelligence operations. Because it is well-connected to the highest levels of the British Intelligence establishment, Rothschilds managed to evade prominent mention of its complicity in one of the more sordid covert intelligence networks, that of BCCI (Bank of Commerce and Credit International). Rothschilds was at the heart of the vast international web of money-laundering banks used during the 1970s and 1980s, by Britain's MI-6 and the network of Lt. Col. Oliver North and Vice President George Bush, to finance such projects as the Nicaraguan Contras.

On June 8, 1993, the chairman of the Banking Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Henry Gonzalez of Texas, made an extraordinary speech in which he charged that the U.S. government, under the Bush and Reagan administrations, had systematically refused to prosecute BCCI, and that the Department of Justice had repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congressional investigations into the BCCI scandal, as well as what Gonzalez said was the intimately related scandal of the Atlanta, Ga. branch of Banca Nationale del Lavoro (BNL), which was alleged to have made billions of dollars in loans from the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein, just prior to the Gulf War of 1 990-91. ...

But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group tied to George Soros was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI.

{p. 36} ... According to these reports, among Soros's silent investors are - as mentioned above - the reclusive fugitive metals and oil trader. Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland, and Israeli arms merchant Shaul Eisenberg, who has been identified as a decades-long member of lsraeli Mossad intelligence, and who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East. {end of EIR material}

To purchase this Report from Executive Intelligence Review: http://www.larouchepub.com/.

Although Lyndon Larouche is branded an "AntiSemite" by the Sharon-Netanyahu faction of Zionists, his organisation is said to include a number of Jews at a high level. Executive Intelligance Review has regularly reported on Soros' activities, especially in connection with the "Asia Crisis". The following item is from Vol. 24, #44, October 31, 1997:

Soros's financial warfare is under increasing investigation

by Gail G. Billington and Cynthia Rush

George Soros is facing new, possibly criminal investigations into his hostile hedge-fund-centered speculation against Asian currencies and stock markets. Despite the best efforts of the mouthpieces of Wall Street and London to spiff up his public image, as the contagion of Soros-style financial hit-and-run attacks spreads to Taiwan and Hongkong, and continues to devastate the weakened nations of Southeast Asia, these nations are aggressively organizing, bilaterally, regionally, and internationally, to put this looting on the agenda of every major intemational meeting through the end of 1997.

Nor are Soros's problems limited to Asia. His name dogged President Clinton throughout his tour of three Ibero-American nations on Oct. 12-18; and, thanks to EIR, public debate on Soros's sordid activities erupted in Argentina, during a press conference with U.S. White House drug policy adviser, Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret.). The President didn't mention Soros's name in public, but Argentine figures who met with Clinton privately, said he expressed concern that Asian-style monetary instability might erupt in Argentina and throughout Ibero-America.

The attacks on Soros, launched by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in late July, and, again, with renewed pungency, at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Annual Meeting in Hongkong in September, have served as a rallying cry that is now being echoed among "emerging market" nations worldwide. The intensity of this momentum increases in tandem with the spread of the financial hemorrhaging, and the view that the crisis is spinning out of the control of the IMF.

Following the Oct. 20-23 hedge-fund assault that sank the Hongkong exchange 23%, and parallel attacks which forced Taiwanese authorities to float their currency on Oct. 17, Denmark's Jyllands-Posten headlined its report on Oct. 22, "The Taiwanese Financial Oversight Board Is Opening Up Investigations Against George Soros." The lead article in the paper's two-page coverage reported, "Taiwan and South Korea have become victims of the unpredictable market forces which to a large extent are controlled by the computers of secret funds, hunting paper-thin exchange margins and, again, the American multi-speculator and political philanthropist George Soros is in the focus.... The Futures and Securities Commission (FSC) of Taiwan has now opened up an investigation into the transactions of George Soros's multibillion-dollar fund on the Taiwanese futures exchange and on the Singapore Monetary Exchange, SIMEX. The FSC thinks that the speculations of Soros's fund was one of the primary reasons for the panic sellings which Friday last week and Monday this week, cost almost 15% on the stock exchange index." An FSC spokesman says, "Mr. Soros has put our markets under extraordinary pressure through his speculative trading on the SIMEX. Our investigations have not been completed yet, and we have not yet decided what actions to take."

The paper reported that on Dec. 2, the finance and economics ministers of the Asian nations will meet in Japan to draft the charter of the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), the $100 billion fund proposed by Japan at the IMF meeting in September, with the support of China, South Korea, Taiwan, ASEAN, and with a positive nod from U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. During bilateral talks in Tokyo between Thai officials and their Japanese allies and creditors in early October, Thai Finance Minister Thanong Bidaya told reporters, "The purpose of the Asia fund is to round up the funding requirements and the contributions of Asian countries in case of a crisis, and it is a good idea. But somehow it has been delayed. Why not put it in the APEC forum? Why just keep it in Asia? The IMF will not have enough to deal with any crisis by itself, and [the AMI;l is an effort to prepare something solid."

Japan's Deputy Finance Minister Eisuke Sakakibara toured Asian capitals during Oct. 14-22 to discuss the AMF idea, which several leaders have said could be used to blunt the effect of crises caused "by accident." As Thanong Bidaya's comments suggest, the AMF, which was the subject of discussions in 1995 between influential Japanese circles and ElR's Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche, will not solve the crises hitting these countries today. It would, however, blunt the worst effects of IMF "conditionalities" in the transition to complete overhaul of global monetary arrangements.

Soros on the hot seat

There has been no letup in organizing on this theme since the IMF Annual Meeting. Malaysia's Dr. Mahathir continues to act as a spokesman in this effort, taking up the subject during his Sept. 25-Oct. 5 tour of four Ibero-American nations (see EIR, Oct. 10 and 17, 1997), where, despite a delayed reaction of the press and institutions, his message re-emerged in headline stories in Venezuela and Brazil, which greeted President Clinton upon his arrival in those nations. The stories linked Dr. Mahathir's call for reining in the speculators, to the AMF, and to LaRouche's Urgent Appeal for a New Bretton Woods Monetary agreement. ... {end of EIR material}

The "Asia Crisis" was unleashed soon after ASEAN decided to admit Burma; George Soros and Madeline Albright had been trying to get ASEAN to reject Burma. Put "soros asean admit burma" into a search engine, e.g. Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=soros+asean+admit+burma&btnG=Google+Search.

Kinhide Mushakoji on Japan's secret co-prosperity sphere.

Soros the Good Guy? Soros the philosopher of the Open Society, opposing Capitalism?


(Login IGORM)


July 5 2002, 8:27 AM 


several sources quoted by Hepperla
3-9-98 various authors

Is Soros the Hitler of the '90s?

This thread is based solely on another thread by Paul Hepperla, who did an extraordinary job of verifying most of the claims made by the navigator. It was an extremely long and heavy thread, buried by the heat of Monica-Gate. So, I have attempted to break down large chunks of it in order to make it easier for people to skim over to parts they are most interested in.

Here is a link to the original thread.

Information based on Stefan Lemieszewski, William Engdahl, Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, Scott Thompson, and others.

The most damning of accusations: ~~ (Soros) spent the war in Hungary under false papers working for the Nazi government, identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow Jews... Soros admits that he survived in Nazi Hungary during the war, as a Jew, by adopting what he calls a double personality. "I have lived with a double personality practically all my life," Soros recently stated. "It started at age fourteen in Hungary, when I assumed a false identity in order to escape persecution as a Jew." Soros admitted in a radio interview that his father gave him Nazi credentials in Hungary during the war, and he looted wealthy Jewish estates. Further research showed that this operation was probably run by the SS. Soros did not leave the country until two years after the war. Though he and his friends in the media are quick to attack any policy opponent of Soros, especially in eastern Europe, as being "anti-Semitic," Soros's Jewish identity apparently has only utilitarian value for him, rather than providing moral foundations. In short, the young Soros was a cynical, ambitious person, the ideal recruit for the British postwar intelligence network.~~

Another damning accusation: Soros did one of his little hit-and-runs in Mexico, apparently leading to the Mexican Bailout, to give one an idea of how much damage he does to the Third World. (-- Arthur's words, based on 'other comment' number 15.) (Another example is Eastern Europe, back to article) ~~ Soros has been personally responsible for introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe since 1989. He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg, to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices. Here are illustrative case histories of Soros's eastern "charity": (article goes on at length about Soros meddling in Poland, resulting in many carpetbagger takeovers, such as the following example…) ~~A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!~~ (Another damning quote…) ~~ Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest.~~ (Other examples explain how Soros, Rich, and Shaul Eisenberg managed to cause chaos in the Russion economy and then exploit it.)

VITAL POINT-- . The Netherlands Antilles (where Soros has his business registered) has repeatedly been cited by the Task Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as one of the world's most important centers for laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic. It is a possession of the Netherlands.

ANOTHER VITAL POINT-- Any competent police investigator looking at the complex legal structure of Soros's businesses would conclude that there is prima facie evidence of either vast money laundering of illicit funds, or massive illegal tax evasion. Both may be true.

VITAL POINT 3-- According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros's circle includes indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive Marc Rich of Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv; secretive Israeli arms and commodity dealer Shaul Eisenberg, and "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, both linked to the financial side of the Israeli Mossad; and, the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.

VITAL POINT 4: The myth, therefore, has been created, that Soros is a lone financial investment "genius" who, through his sheer personal brilliance in detecting shifts in markets, has become one of the world's most successful speculators. According to those who have done business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move without sensitive insider information.

VITAL POINT 5: key businesses connecting Soros with Rothschild: St. James Place Capital, Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, Inc. Rothschild suborinates linked with Soros: Richard Katz, Nils O. Taube, Lord William Rees-Mogg, *George C. Karlweiss, Tom Lantos (see other point number 16),

VITAL POINT 6: A frequent business partner of Soros in various speculative deals, including in the 1993 gold manipulation, although not on the Quantum Fund directly, is the Anglo-French speculator Sir James Goldsmith, a cousin of the Rothschild family.

*VITAL POINT 7: George C. Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild's Switzerland-based Banque Privee SA in Lugano, as well as of the scandal-tainted Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich, gave Soros financial backing. Karlweiss provided some of the vital initial capital and investors for Soros's Quantum Fund.

VITAL POINT 8: (Partly Arthur's own observation) The AUAC had a handful of American members. Soros was one. Kissinger another. (But the really interesting one is Michael Jordan, chairman and CEO, Westinghouse Electric Corp. Westinghouse owns CBS. That is extremely significant, in light of Dan Rather's reluctance to mention anything harmful to Clinton. In fact, Rather isn't even interested in Monica coverage and took the lead in defending him.) Previous members were Forbes (not necessarilly connected) and Dwayne Orville Andreas (chairman and CEO, Archer Daniels Midland Co.), whose company pleaded guilty last month for anti-trust and price-fixing violations and agreed to pay a $100 million fine---the largest fine of its kind ever. (ADM is one company I am highly suspicious of. They look at DC as a real cash cow in their ethonol program, and I have another suspicion of them that I am not comfortable with elaborating on at this time-it is a rather vague hunch, you could say.) Also in a previous post it was indicated that at least six of the current seven American members of AUAC are also members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), including George Soros.

VITAL POINT 9: Soros had an inside scoop when China was going to invest in gold (unless he made it up…) This connection with China might possibly reveal much down the road.

VITAL POINT 10: Soros is quite close to the circles of George Bush in the U.S. intelligence community and finance.


(Login IGORM)


July 5 2002, 8:28 AM 



THE irony is breathtaking. At the request of a quixotic Spanish magistrate, acting way beyond his jurisdiction, Tony Blair’s British Labour Party arrested Chile’s General Pinochet last October, on very suspect legal grounds: and, as this is written, is still holding him. Pinochet’s crime? At a pretty desperate moment in his country’s history, he and his army stepped in and prevented Chile sliding into Cuban-type Marxism.

Yet, at the very same time, another man – one worse by far than Hitler ever was – also sits in London, a welcome and honoured British guest. A man who has changed the course of our future history, who has set the global economy back by 15 or 20 years, who has deliberately and ruthlessly ruined national economies around the world, thrown tens of millions of workers on the scrap-heap, inflicted the maximum possible damage on the poorest of the poor. Worse, by his pernicious machinations, has returned many countries to the communist yoke.

He is? Who else but the multi-billionaire currency speculator, George Soros, the Superman, the very Croesus, among currency speculators.

Soros has just written a new book: The Crisis of Global Capitalism. Here he bites the corrupt hand that has so enriched him. Without regulation and morality, he warns, global markets will self-destruct. He is now publicly worried about global depression and the great US bear market. His volte face came after he himself suffered heavy losses in a market he had himself rigged in Russia last year.

The book, though often incomprehensible, nevertheless makes some sound suggestions on how to regulate the markets. Unfortunately, he seems to overlook the small fact that it has been rapacious and predatory currency speculators such as himself, parasites with a callous disregard for the fate of humanity, who helped bring the global economy to its present point of near-collapse. Soros himself has perhaps been the most explosive force in the ongoing meltdown of the currency markets.

On his own public record, his goal has been to loot wherever and however he could. He sucks the lifeblood from national economies, creating conditions where nations can no longer fund themselves. He robs from rich Western countries and uses his profits to rob even more savagely from the East. He lays the groundwork for buying up the assets of whole regions of
the world at dirt-cheap prices. What Soros always leaves behind is collapsed local markets and the national ruin of financial investors.

Going through his voluminous files, you note that the media frequently refer to him as "The Man Who Broke The Bank of England." That goes back to September 1992, to his fabled attack on the British £ and the Italian lira, wrecking the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM): in the process pocketing US$1 billion, probably the first time in history one man has made $1 billion in a single day.

Could a single man break the Bank of England? I put that question to a number of overseas economists. Their reply: "The idea that a single man, even one with investment funds in excess of $10 billion, could ‘break the £’ is absurd. In normal circumstances, the combined power of the Anglo/American central banks could easily destroy any outsider who dared launch such an attack."

Okay. Accepting that the "lone financier" scenario, like the mythical "lone assassin," is nonsense, how were the British set up? "Obviously, it required institutions far more powerful than Soros: the Western central banks, banking families such as the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers. It is now widely accepted that the Soros attack on the £ and the lira was an inside job, done in collaboration with the US Federal Reserve, the Roths-childs and a handful of major US banks: the biggest Citicorp, JP Morgan, Bankers Trust, BankAmerica, Chemical Bank, Chase Manhattan and First Chicago. Most likely, the Fed was using Soros to carry out activities that it dare not carry out in its own name. The Fed was certainly in a position to shut Soros down if it so wished."

According to William Engdahl, the German author respected for his meticulous research into problem financial areas and the shenanigans of those seeking to mandate a new world order, the New York Federal Reserve provides Soros with information on the condition and strategies of other central banks, allowing him more precisely to attack his targets. But the Fed is not alone.

Soros has been identified as a front man of the Anglo-French Rothschild banking group. Clearly, neither he nor the Rothschilds want this important fact to be known.


His tight links to key figures in the City of London, the British Foreign Office, to Israel’s Mossad intelligence service and the American Establishment are also carefully concealed.

The myth of Soros as the "lone financier" is not the only fabrication. According to his many media flaks, Soros is a "Holocaust Survivor," a "self-made man" and the great philanthropist of our age. So who is Soros?

The official version is that Soros was born in 1930 to Jewish parents in Hungary and as a teenager was chased from Budapest by the invading Nazis. But, like so many things about Mr Soros, superficial impressions mislead. As far as it is possible to get at the truth, in Budapest in 1944 George Soros led a double life. His father, Tivador, a lawyer and editor of a journal in Esperanto (an almost forgotten effort to create a world language) forged official papers to disguise the family’s Jewish heritage: and save his family from the death camps. He had already sold off his property, so there was nothing for the Nazis to confiscate.

The papers saved the family. During the Nazi occupation, with German and Hungarian fascists rounding up some 300 000 Jews, young Soros posed as the Christian godson of an Hungarian official responsible for expropriating Jewish property. The 14-year old George sometimes accompanied his supposed godfather, helping to identify and expropriate the property of wealthy fellow Jews. So far from being a "Holocaust Survivor," George Soros was instead a Nazi collaborator.

In a TV interview, 15.4.93, Soros made the startling admission: "I actually went with him, and we took decisions on these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange, very strange, life." To this day, Soros recalls those as "the happiest years of my life."

After the Nazis came the communists. In 1947 Soros skedaddled to London to escape retribution by survivors. He enrolled at the London School of Economics, where he met his second mentor, the libertarian philosopher, Karl Popper, the Viennese émigré who taught philosophy at the LSE after the war and who coined the phrase "open society."

Soros graduated in 1952 and in 1956 moved to New York, where he worked for several years on Wall Street. In 1969 he set up his own investment fund, Quantum Fund NV, with capitalisation of $4 million. A private mutual fund, Quantum is registered in the tax haven of Curacao, in the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true nature of his investors and what he does with his money.

To evade control of his financial activities by the US administration, not a single US citizen sits on the Quantum board. Its directors are a curious mix of Swiss and Italian financiers.
However, it is apparent that the Rothschilds dominate the board. Listed as a board member is one, Richard Katz. He is also head of the Rothschild Italia S.p.A. in Milan and also on the board of the commercial bank, N M Rothschild & Son in London. Another board member is Nils O Taube, a partner in the London investment group, St James’ Place Capital, of which Lord Rothschild is one of its main partners.

Speculation is that through his association with Mossad, he can call on the resources of the Zionist apparatus in the world financial committee. Overall, then, it seems that Soros does indeed have access to the inside track of the world’s most important information channels, both government and banks.

From his appalling record, it is clear that for Soros and his associates there is no such thing as the common welfare. That was amply demonstrated in 1989 when Soros, aided and abetted by his friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard, was directly responsible for the collapse and huge disruptions caused by their "shock therapy" in Russia. There had been zero or negative growth in the old USSR from the early 1980s.

The ludicrously draconian measures foisted on Moscow by the Soros/Sachs "reform" plan brought unprecedented chaos and foreseeable hyperinflation, followed by the breakup of Russia. In the following havoc and confusion, Soros and his pals bought up resources across wide parts of the area at rock bottom prices.

Soros admits that he knew his "economic shock treatment" would lead to severe unemployment, the closing of factories and business houses, and social tensions. This, seemingly, did not trouble him in the least.

In the early 1990’s, a "Yugoslav reform programme" drafted by Jeffrey Sachs and involving Soros, was approved by the IMF in the name of the Markovich government. This was an equal disaster, leading to the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war in the Balkans.

In March 1993 Soros proclaimed, with great publicity, that the price of gold was about to rise sharply: that he had just obtained "inside information" that China was about to buy huge sums of gold for its booming economy. The next month, again with great publicity, he purchased a 20% stake in Newman Mining, a Denver-based gold company, from controllers Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Jacob Rothschild. The fourth major partner in Newmont was reportedly Li Ka Shing, at the time Hong Kong’s leading narco-billionaire.

The drug connection is relevant, as much of the money flowing into the international derivatives markets – and into the sort of currency weapon in which Soros specialises – is laundered drug money.


(Login IGORM)


July 5 2002, 8:30 AM 

The much-hyped gold purchases by Quantum and Goldsmith, together with the Newmont deal, set the market alight. Soros was able to trigger a rush into the buying of gold, causing prices to rise more than 20% in four months, the highest level since 1991. Typically, once the suckers rushed in to push prices even higher, Soros and his friend Sir James Goldsmith secretly began selling gold at a huge profit.

By August of that year gold fell to $368, more than $40 below its peak of $400,50. The London Sunday Times pointed an accusatory finger at Soros, claiming he had sold two to three million ounces.

Soros is very anti-German. In June 1993 he personally led an assault on the German deutschmark, unhinging the currency and further weakening the West European markets. By late 1993 Soros was infesting a growth list of countries in Ibero-America, to their cost.

In more recent times economies in the Far East have also degenerated into sharp recessions, devaluation, debt, default and bankruptcy, not least because of Soros. In 1997 Soros and other currency pirates attacked the Thai baht, the Malaysian ringget and the Japanese yen. Soros insists that his role in the collapse of Far Eastern currencies has been over-stated: but the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, singled him out specifically as the prime cause of the crisis in Malaysia’s economy.

In May 1998 the Russian rouble again came under what The Wall Street Journal described as "a heavy assault by financial speculators led by Soros." Panicking at the threat of wholesale capital flight, the Yeltsin administration raised interest rates on its government bonds, known as GKOs (or "gekkos") from 20% to 50% to 80%.

Within a month, the Russian economy was on the brink of breakdown. GKO banks were now paying what even some investors termed an "insane" interest rate of 150%. By now, millions of Russian workers had gone unpaid for almost a year, Russian troops were being fed surplus dogfood. But no matter. Soros, together with Goldman Sachs, the giant US-based investment bank noted for its close ties to US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (its once and reported future chairman) were buying up, by the bagful, Russia’s foreign debt, to a reported US$23 billion.

July, 1998. Foreign bondholders now faced the threat of a bankrupt – and deadbeat – Russia. But Rubin always considerate of the interests of his old firm, Goldman Sachs, stepped in and helped out with a major international bailout. The amount? $22,6 billion, almost matching the amount Russia owed to its Wall Street creditors. But what if the rouble was devalued? Happily, the IMF-led bailout turns out to include an agreement guaranteeing that Russia’s foreign bondholders will be paid in US$.
In an editorial headlined "How The Rich Get Richer with IMF Funding," The Wall Street Journal, 14.7.98, commented: "Just how did the IMF get into the business of using US taxpayers’ money to advance (such) capital flight from Russia?" According to Wall Street speculation, the answer lies in the unpublished interests Soros shares with Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs with Rubin.

On August 13, 1998, world financial markets were again thrown into renewed turmoil after Soros once more spectacularly intervened in the Russian economy. In a signed letter to the London Financial Times, he warned of a "meltdown" in Russia and called for a 15% to 25% devaluation of the rouble. Not only did he cause mayhem on the world’s financial markets, but he sparked both devastating financial and political crisis in Russia, resulting in the collapse of the rouble. But Soros is not infallible, as he himself is the first to admit. This little lot reportedly cost him US$2 billion.

Anyone else pulling such diabolical stunts would go to jail. But not multi-billionaire Mr Soros. Were the Western leaders truly serious about stemming the meltdown and restoring their economies they would crush Soros and prosecute both he and his various central bank accomplices. Instead, they prefer to harass Pinochet.

Now for Soros, "the international philanthropist of our age." In 1979, he launched an Open Society Foundation, so named in honour of Karl Popper. There are now Soros foundations in 31 countries, all funded by his investment company, the Quantum Fund. Using his usurious gains in the global shakedown, he has doled out large sums of money for a variety of causes. According to his own PR flaks, each year he gives away some $300 million through a network of 1 000 employees in countries spread from Haiti to Mongolia.

In 1993 a R45 million Open Society Foundation to "promote democracy" was founded in South Africa. At the time of its launch, the OSF board members were: Tony Heard, Dr Mamphila Ramphele, Alex Boraine, Johannesburg Star editor Peter Sullivan, Helen Zille and chairman Van Zyl Slabbert. Study those names and you will see where the bias rests.

Nor did his "great philanthropy" save us from a currency mugging. On Friday, June 26, 1998, Soros was named as the ringleader behind the dramatic plunge in the value of the rand against major currencies.

In recent years he has spent many millions in a campaign to legalise drugs. That should not surprise. In June 1993 it was disclosed that a major investor with Quantum was the Israeli arms dealer, Shaul Eisenberg, often accused of laundering drug money for the Chinese triads.


.../9 .../Clean up TV, or lose Ads

Is Soros completely sane? There is a great deal of debate about that. On his own admission, it has long been his desire "to change the world." Although a very mediocre intellectual, he has compared himself to Einstein. In its 1995 New Year issue, The New Yorker categorised Soros’ growing involvement in foreign affairs as "a sign of incipient megalomania." In an article in the same magazine, Soros himself said he always felt a sense of himself as "super human."

He also told BBC-TV viewers that "Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad. In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it." Maybe.
Does the enormous damage and untold misery he has brought to so many countries, to so many millions, not disturb him? He has written: "As an anonymous participant in financial markets I never had to weigh social consequences of my actions, but I felt justified in ignoring them because I was playing by the rules." He reiterated this in a London interview last year: "As a market participant I don’t need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions."

Yet in The Crisis of Global Capitalism, he calls for a global regulator to protect markets from speculators such as himself. Now he says: "Although we are justified in playing by the rules, we ought also to be concerned with the rules with which we play." Interesting guy.


(Login IGORM)


July 5 2002, 11:53 AM 


A Philanthropist Defies Drug War Orthodoxy

One thing about George Soros everyone can agree on: He isn't worried what people think of him. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad blamed the American billionaire for nearly ruining Malaysia's economy with massive currency speculation. Hard-core Russian nationalists decried as "meddling" his funding of progressive newspapers and institutions in post-Soviet Russia. Now, it's a prickly domestic cause--drug policy--that has folks taking aim at this hard-nosed financier and controversial philanthropist.
part 2 of 2 of:]


A Philanthropist Defies Drug War Orthodoxy

After five years of verbal brickbats from drug warriors, Soros says he doesn't mind being a target: "Other people express more respect for me because I am ready to say something that they would like to say if they could afford it." Even staunch opponents of his views admire Soros's unwavering commitment. "He doesn't care how many articles are written against him," says New York Times columnist and drug warrior A.M. Rosenthal, a heavy critic of Soros who nevertheless notes, "Social responsibility is what is important to him."

Many Americans--especially strong supporters of a tough-on-drugs policy--still imagine drug users as people distinctly different from themselves. As Nadelmann likes to point out, Americans' attitude toward drug users today is reminiscent of our attitude toward homosexuals thirty years ago. "You know one, you just don't know you know one," he says. We also don't know whether enlightened policy models that work in small, relatively low-crime, relatively homogeneous and unfractured European societies will necessarily work here. There are just too many variables.

To critics, Soros, Nadelmann and company are proposing a dangerous new course whose consequences are uncertain at best and potentially disastrous. "Lindesmith Center's line is deliberately vague," says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman, a drug-reform moderate. "It's like it used to be with the Old Leftists when you'd ask them, 'What's life going to be like after the revolution?' 'Oh, well, we'll decide that after the revolution.'" Still, few would dispute that Soros is fostering a bracing debate on whether being at war with ourselves is really the best--or only--way to win the "war" against drugs.

Note: Russ Baker's last article for The Nation was "The Education of Mike Milken" [May 3]. Research assistance: David Levinson Wilk.

Soros is the "Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization," says Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Clinton Administration drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey won't speak directly about Soros, but McCaffrey's spokesman, Bob Weiner, was typically biting in his assessment of the Lindesmith Center, a Soros-backed institution that serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use: "I'm sure Lindesmith's desire to take us into nihilism and chaos and to jam our hospital emergency rooms with more users has some valid purpose." Out on the lunatic fringe, anti-Semitic cult leader Lyndon LaRouche has labeled Soros, a Hungarian-born Jew, the mastermind behind a global drug cartel.

As a creative philanthropist, Soros is perhaps best known for his largesse to causes in Central and Eastern Europe ( last year alone he gave away half a billion in places like Bosnia and Kazakhstan ). When in 1994 he chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America's $37-billion-a-year war on drugs, he seemed intent on proving that he was either a fool or a visionary. It's still too early for a final judgment. But one thing is clear: He's touched a lot of raw nerves in challenging a long-entrenched view that the best way to fight drug abuse is through the criminal justice system.

That tendency was vividly apparent when in June 1998, at the United Nations' second conference on drugs, General McCaffrey was handed a perfectly timed two-page advertisement that had just run in the New York Times. The banner headline read: the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself. Eyewitnesses recall the general fuming. And no wonder: The ad, brainchild of Lindesmith's director, Ethan Nadelmann, was an open letter signed by a spectacular array of opinion-makers, including numerous Nobel Prize laureates, former presidents, prime ministers and former UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar.

Soros's efforts to change the terms of the drug dialogue in America--from exhortation and punishment to treatment and rehabilitation--have ranged from such grand PR gestures as the Times open letter to the less glamorous tasks of research and grassroots advocacy. He has funded methadone-treatment and needle-exchange programs, supported a spate of successful medical-marijuana ballot initiatives and provided an institutional home in Lindesmith for Nadelmann, a man whom opponents tag as America's most unabashed proselytizer for legalization of drugs. Over the past six years Soros has given some $30 million to drug reform--just 7 percent of his overall domestic giving, but nonetheless a significant sum in the circumscribed world of drug policy advocacy.

In an interview with The Nation, Soros argued that his interest in shaking up the conventional wisdom about the war on drugs--and challenging political leaders to look beyond the zero-tolerance military model--is entirely consistent with his vision of an "open society." The parent organization of his worldwide philanthropic operation, the Open Society Institute ( OSI ), is founded upon the philosophical premise that nobody has a monopoly on the truth and that originally well-intentioned government efforts often turn repressive. "When I started looking to do something in the United States, [I saw that] one of the areas where policy has unintended adverse consequences is drug policy," Soros says. "That was the insight that got me involved." It's hard to argue with the facts he cites: Back in 1980 the federal government spent $1 billion on drug control and approximately 50,000 Americans were incarcerated for drug-law violations. Today Washington spends $18 billion annually, 400,000 people are in jail for nonviolent drug-related offenses and drugs are still widely available to anyone who wants them.

Yet Soros is remarkably frank about the fact that he hasn't got all the answers. "I don't know what the right thing to do is," he said, "but I do have a very strong conviction that what we are doing [now] is doing an awful lot of harm." In the name of reducing that harm and learning more about the problem, Soros is backing a range of organizations and initiatives that are testing out new ground, without subjecting them to a rigid ideological litmus test. Still, organizations using Soros money share certain core principles. Whether they lobby against harsh determinate sentencing for first-time drug offenders, run needle-exchange programs for addicts or promote methadone and other drug treatment programs, they reject the notion that drug users should be treated as criminals. "Criminalization," says Aryeh Neier, OSI's president ( formerly executive director of Human Rights Watch and of the ACLU ), "is a strategy that buys into the notion that if you lock up enough young black males--for whatever reason--you will promote public safety."

By far the most conspicuous part of Soros's empire is the Lindesmith Center. That's largely because it is directed by Nadelmann, who has a knack for saying things that others can't--or won't--say. Lindesmith is so integral a part of the Open Society Institute that its offices are mixed in right along with other Soros ventures like the Soros Documentary Fund and the Project on Death in America in the midtown Manhattan building that also houses Soros's business interests.

The two men met in 1992, when Soros was looking to extend his philanthropic efforts to the United States. Nadelmann was a Princeton professor and one of the most visible--and provocative--critics of US drug policy. ( In 1993 Nadelmann declared, "It's nice to think that in another five or ten years...the right to possess and consume drugs may be as powerfully and as widely understood as the other rights of Americans." ) Soros invited Nadelmann to lunch. After further discussions, in 1994 Soros agreed to create the Lindesmith Center and put Nadelmann at the helm. The center ( named for the late Professor Alfred Lindesmith of Indiana University, the first prominent US academic to challenge the war on drugs approach ) became the first of what are now dozens of domestic programs run out of OSI. Today, it has eighteen employees in New York and San Francisco and a modest budget of $1.7 million.

Although he's still actively managing billions in investments, Soros gives major face time to the drug reform effort. "My impression of Soros: extremely smart guy," says Kevin Zeese, a leading drug reform campaigner. "He can look at situations and be very helpful in figuring out strategies that make sense." When Zeese was a staffer at the Washington-based Drug Policy Foundation ( DPF ), which was, before Lindesmith, the leading pro-decriminalization advocacy group in the country, he sent Soros a grant proposal asking him to support lobbying and other advocacy activities. Soros invited Zeese to breakfast and confessed he didn't know enough about the policy issues to feel comfortable funding advocacy per se. But if Zeese was willing to tackle projects such as needle exchange and AIDS prevention--hands-on treatment as opposed to efforts to change laws--Soros was in. Zeese later moved on to form his own group, Common Sense for Drug Policy, which combines advocacy work with support for service-oriented programs. Last year Soros gave the organization $125,000, a quarter of its $500,000 budget.

As an alternative to locking people up, most Soros-backed groups advocate what they call "harm reduction"--a common-sense approach to drug policy that would nonetheless represent a radical departure from current practice. "The basic idea," Nadelmann says, "is that you have a fallback strategy for dealing with people who are engaged in behavior that can be risky or dangerous. So if you're smoking cigarettes, smoke less or don't smoke around kids or don't throw your ashes in dry timber. If you're drinking alcohol, don't drink and drive. You ride a bicycle--use a helmet. That's harm reduction."

In other words, harm reduction is about accepting certain realities about substance abuse and then trying to minimize the related harm to everyone. It accepts that some people will use drugs regardless of the consequences or penalties. Therefore, the key is to educate the public with accurate information--not hysterics--and, where that doesn't work, follow up with treatment. It involves containing and controlling drug use and therefore its harmful consequences to both the users and others who may be affected by the abuse--spouses and children, crime victims and so on.

Lindesmith is perhaps the foremost practitioner of this approach, but Soros's drug reform philanthropy is by no means limited to Lindesmith, and Nadelmann has played a key role in helping him decide what else to support. Since 1993, Soros's OSI has committed roughly $11 million to the DPF, which makes its own grants for needle exchange, women's treatment, drug education and methadone programs. Other recipients of Soros money include the Harm Reduction Coalition, an advocacy group with leadership largely made up of recovering drug abusers; the Research and Policy Reform Center, an OSI affiliate that works to affect the political process directly, coordinating medical-marijuana ballot initiatives and pushing for state-level legislation ( such as revising the drastic Rockefeller laws in New York and expanding access to methadone in Vermont ); Drug Strategies, a mom-and-apple-pie group that promotes treatment, education and prevention; and the Tides Foundation, a progressive San Francisco-based grant-making institution that supports needle exchange. Soros has also taken the issue abroad, giving $3.8 million over the past four years to support harm-reduction programs in Central and Eastern Europe.

An immediate goal of many organizations devoted to harm reduction is expanding access to methadone treatment--a program that is seen by skeptics as just substituting one addiction for another. In response, writing in Foreign Affairs last year, Nadelmann noted that the "addiction" to methadone is "more like a diabetic's 'addiction' to insulin than a heroin addict's to product bought on the street." While methadone has been shown in scores of studies to be an effective treatment for heroin addiction--and findings by the National Institute on Drug Abuse show that an intravenous drug user enrolled in a methadone treatment program is seven times less likely to become infected with HIV than a person not enrolled in one--it remains acutely underfunded, with at most 180,000 of the nation's estimated 800,000 heroin users able to get it. Closing this gap has been a top priority of OSI-funded drug reform organizations, which have pursued it by lobbying for legislation on methadone maintenance treatment in the eight states where it is still illegal, participating in conferences and spearheading public education drives to counter perceptions that methadone treatment is just drug abuse by another name.

Harm-reduction groups are also fighting to expand needle-exchange programs, bolstered by research by the federal Centers for Disease Control, which estimates that half of all new HIV cases stem from use of infected syringes. No more than an estimated 10 percent of injection drug users have access to clean-needle programs. ( Contaminated needles have created a new AIDS generation: A 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, which called for the Surgeon General to lift the federal ban on funding needle-exchange programs, stated that "more than half of all pediatric AIDS cases reported in 1993 can be linked to the HIV epidemic among injection drug users." ) Soros has made major grants for needle exchange through the DPF, the Tides Foundation and the George Williams Fund, which is the principal source of private funding for needle exchange in the United States as well as in Central and Eastern Europe.

Critics charge that while harm reduction sounds reasonable, it will only lead to increased drug use, with all its attendant social ills. "Anything that becomes more accessible to adults will become more accessible to young people," notes Dr. Jerome Jaffe, who served as director of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention in the Nixon Administration. "Coming out with a sensible and workable policy is simply avoided in these very interesting flights of rhetoric Ethan is capable of. He can be an effective speaker to people who are not fully cognizant of all the problems we face."

Perhaps the most controversial element of Soros's drug-reform portfolio--and the one most frequently associated with a pro-legalization agenda--is the medical-marijuana movement. All told, Soros-backed ballot initiatives related to marijuana have gone to the people in seven states, beginning with California's Proposition 215 ( where Soros donated $550,000 ) and Arizona's Proposition 200 in 1996, where Soros plopped down $430,000 and later tacked on $366,000 to help fortify the initiative, which also introduced probation and treatment for nonviolent first- and second-time offenders instead of prison. The California initiative has yet to take effect because of foot-dragging by conservative state officials. But in Arizona, since Prop 200 passed, jail rolls have been lightened of hundreds of drug users and the state has saved more than $2.5 million in prison costs, according to a recent report by Arizona's Administrative Office of the Courts.

Moving from grant-making and policy-wonking to passing laws has proven to be a productive step, but one requiring delicacy. "We are very cautious not to mix tax deductibles with non-tax deductibles, where you are trying to influence legislation," Soros says. "We live in a glass bowl, and people look at you very carefully, so we look at everything very carefully. If anything, we err on the side of caution." Soros has used his own money to back these legislative ventures, but it has nevertheless been Nadelmann brokering many of the crucial deals, bringing in two other businessmen, Peter Lewis ( an insurance magnate from Cleveland ) and John Sperling ( founder of the for-profit University of Phoenix ), each of whom ponied up approximately a third of a million dollars.

Nadelmann, 42, is the son of a rabbi. Lean and pale-freckled, with close-cropped auburn hair and a gray-tinged beard, he speaks with studied fervor, his voice ringing with conviction, his hands punctuating his arguments as he parcels out his words. At a typical gathering, Nadelmann might begin by acknowledging the widespread and often legitimate panic sparked by drugs: parents' fear of losing their children, the public's alarm over rampant drug-related crime, the spread of HIV. Quickly, though, he's challenging his audience to look more closely at positions they have probably never heard defended with such winning reasonableness: Throughout history and in all manner of societies, drugs have been present; like it or not, drugs will always be present. Drug abuse is self-directed behavior, and you cannot legislate such behavior. ( "You shouldn't be arresting people and taking away their freedom and engaging them in the criminal justice system unless they really cause some harm to somebody else." ) He argues that the drug war has devastated civil liberties, given police unprecedented new powers and penalized unevenly the preferred vices of various ethnic, racial and social groups. He complains that the massive rise in drug-related incarceration has decimated communities, destroyed families and put society's most vulnerable people not in a therapeutic environment but in one that actually fosters long-term drug use and related violence.

Nadelmann argues that the right of people to self-administer whatever they want is consonant with the objective of all libertarians, civil and otherwise. But he dislikes the word "legalize," which he finds needlessly divisive and somewhat misleading. The use of this term to disparage reformers reminds Nadelmann of the days when all trade unionists were labeled Marxists: "It's a pretty systematic effort by the drug warriors to really ghettoize us and portray us as one extreme," he says. Craig Reinarman, an OSI drug policy board member and professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, agrees: "The way you hear it from the drug warriors, you get the vision of vending machines--you go to the supermarket and ask, 'Where's the crack aisle? Where's the heroin aisle?'"

As a result of attacks like these, Nadelmann has become somewhat of a pariah to the drug-policy establishment--signaling his effectiveness as a critic but also the hurdles he must overcome. "The drug czar has refused to be at any public event where Nadelmann is," says Reinarman. "[McCaffrey] is probably smart enough to avoid embarrassment." Calvina Fay, deputy executive director at the Drug Free America Foundation, who has never been on a panel with Nadelmann, says, "We don't think debating is a very good idea."

In his florid presentations, Nadelmann occasionally pushes the analogy envelope, noting, for example, our unwillingness to ban cars, which kill more people than drugs do. The hyperbole makes academic drug-policy analysts--generally the middle-grounders of a continuum on which Lindesmith is seen as extreme--shake their heads. "Advocacy groups like the Lindesmith Center benefit in terms of charging up the people who are affiliated with them by seeing this in a sort of good-versus-evil conflict setting...[but] I'm frustrated to the extent that the whole debate has been polarized," says Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon public policy professor and researcher at RAND's Drug Policy Research Center. "Lindesmith has, in some cases, blocked practical, incremental improvement because it allows politicians to posture and to make outrageous statements...in place of serious thinking."

Critics point out that Nadelmann openly supported legalization in his pre-Lindesmith days. But he has since had a change of heart ( or tactics ) that Soros himself has no trouble accepting as genuine. Nadelmann's discomfort with prohibition is still apparent, but his language has softened, and he acknowledges and even promotes the more moderate positions of other reformers. "Ethan started out with a more radical position than the one he stands for today," says Soros. "There has been an evolution in his thinking. Partly because of his role at the Lindesmith Center, he has evolved and is now looking for more consensual and less ideological ways of dealing with things." Despite criticism of Nadelmann's approach, Soros has no intention of backing away from him. "I believe in substance and not image," says Soros. "If Ethan has an image problem, I think I can live with it. At the same time, we have constituted an advisory board that represents a broader range of views, so I want to make sure that I am striking a balance." Other OSI drug policy advisory board members include three sociology professors and a professor of public health--and one other figure as out-front as Nadelmann, Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, famed for his early advocacy of decriminalization.

If Nadelmann and Soros are going to build any sort of popular movement around drug policy reform, one challenge they must face is the tension that persists between the legalization camp and black activists. Rev. Calvin Butts of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, for example, says he is for moving away from harsh penalties for possession, but against legalization. "There's a sharp debate in the black community regarding legalization," says Butts. "Those of us who deal with drug users and see the effects are opposed to legalization. Often white liberals just don't get it." Deborah Small, Lindesmith's director of public policy and community outreach, who is black and Latino, has a similar view. "To the extent there's tension in the drug-reform movement, it has a lot to do with the fact that the movement is dominated by white liberals whose principal issue has to do with legalization, particularly of marijuana," says Small, who was formerly legislative director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, where she worked with Nadelmann on changes in New York's harsh Rockefeller drug laws. "That doesn't have resonance in the African-American community, [where] the principal issues have to do with incarceration and punitive policies.... Legalization is not considered a legitimate option in the African-American community. With the alcohol and tobacco problems we face, legalization is seen as another form of genocide against communities of color. It is not enough to say you should be against the war on drugs. Removing that is not going to make the situation better unless you're talking about taking money from the war on drugs and using it for services so people don't return to drugs or drug-selling."

Small notes that Soros is, by definition, removed from some of the practical effects of the drug problem. "A month ago, we had a meeting at his estate--it was nice being up there; he has a beautiful home," she recalls. "That night--I live in Brooklyn near the projects--I heard gunshots. One of the things I couldn't help thinking about is that [Soros] doesn't have that experience. He doesn't have to hear gunshots. The drug war has a different meaning for me.... And yet I think he's a lot more sensitive than a lot of people who are disconnected from those consequences." Lindesmith itself, she says, is perhaps the strongest advocate on issues that matter to communities of color, such as the way felony convictions ( many of which are drug related ) have effectively disfranchised 13 percent of all black men.

Most drug-policy experts agree that Soros and his associates have affected the national dialogue on drugs but see only one or two areas of concrete advances. "Ethan Nadelmann is a major figure in the drug-reform area, but I don't detect any movement on the issues coming from anything other than medical-marijuana initiatives," says Philip Heymann, who served as Deputy Attorney General under Clinton, where he was a key Justice Department figure with regard to drug issues. And those initiatives draw credible criticism that Soros and his associates are using a medical issue to advance the broader political agenda of drug decriminalization.

The harm-reduction approach has achieved other, less spectacular victories. After years of inaction, the House finally passed what had been a perennially doomed bill to soften the punitive forfeiture of civil assets by those arrested for drug offenses [see Eric Blumenson and Eva Nilsen, "The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda," March 9, 1998]. While the credit for this shift can't be attributed specifically to Soros, his outfits have been active on the issue recently; OSI made a grant several months ago to the libertarian Cato Institute for a conference on forfeiture, and the Lindesmith Center hosted a seminar on the topic. Meanwhile, both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health have issued statements expressing their support for needle exchange, methadone treatment and medical marijuana. Polls nationwide show increased public skepticism toward the war on drugs and, in most cases, favorable opinion for efforts like medical marijuana. ( Last year Congress refused to count the vote of a Washington, DC, medical-marijuana initiative; exit polls suggested that it had passed by 69 percent. ) In addition, there's growing sympathy among judges, legislators and ordinary citizens for doing away with harsh mandatory-minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Lindesmith has been fighting an uphill battle to expand treatment for intravenous drug users, but this past summer the prospects finally became brighter. In July, the Clinton Administration proposed significant changes in methadone treatment policy, including national accreditation for methadone centers and a system for accrediting hospitals and doctors so that they can prescribe the drug. ( The final regulations are expected to be issued early next year. ) Yet the gap between available treatment slots and drug abusers who want them remains huge.

Even less promising is the status of needle exchange. Despite Soros's $1 million matching grant to fund clean needles--and his support of many foundations working in this area--there has been little change in public policy toward such programs. In April of last year, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala was set to give a press conference announcing the government's reversal of its position on needle-exchange funding, but the Clinton Administration reneged at the last minute.

Surveying these wins and losses, Soros himself says he has no intention of remaining the sole patron of the movement. "I think we want to move toward more publicly funded activity rather than being bankrolled by fat cats," he says. He's also pushing for smaller contributions from a larger base. Making good on his promise to allow the whole enterprise to sink or swim, as he has recently done with some of his Central and Eastern European nonprofits, Soros has cut back his donations to the DPF, eliminating funds for the group's operations while continuing to fund its community-treatment grant program. DPF's Tyler Green says that several heavily endowed old-line foundations have already offered to step into the breach ( he asked that their names not be used ). As for the marijuana initiatives, other funders plan to stay committed. "We're in this for the long haul," says University of Phoenix's Sperling. "We're on a roll." Among other things, they plan to retry initiatives in Maine, Nevada and Colorado, where technicalities prevented them from getting on the ballot last time.

"The first five years have focused on a critique of the current approach," says Gara LaMarche, OSI's director of US programs. "The question is, What now? If the medical-marijuana initiatives showed that the conventional thinking on the war on drugs can be overcome, what's the long-term agenda? We need to focus more on the intersection of drugs and the criminal justice system--to address the disabilities that affect great numbers of people, including drug testing, prosecution of minor offenses and mandatory minimums." Lindesmith, LaMarche says, will probably be spun out as a freestanding organization.

"I think if there is any real challenge the Lindesmith Center and the drug-policy reform movement are facing, it is how to take a political viewpoint and ideology and turn it into a movement," says Lindesmith's Small. "It isn't now. There's a group of people who share a common perspective, but it hasn't been turned into a plan of action. To be a movement, you have got to be able to communicate goals and aspirations to other communities, especially the minority communities. Those communities are not only not represented in the movement, they're not even aware that a movement exists."

After five years of verbal brickbats from drug warriors, Soros says he doesn't mind being a target: "Other people express more respect for me because I am ready to say something that they would like to say if they could afford it." Even staunch opponents of his views admire Soros's unwavering commitment. "He doesn't care how many articles are written against him," says New York Times columnist and drug warrior A.M. Rosenthal, a heavy critic of Soros who nevertheless notes, "Social responsibility is what is important to him."



(Login IGORM)


July 7 2002, 8:02 AM 


(The slightly enlarged version of speech delivered by Marek Glogoczowski during the EU(RO)-skeptic Youth Camp held at Ljublana, Slovenia, Sept. 26-27, 2001.)

George Soros is a businessman-philanthropist, whose activities are known to professionals worldwide. In USA he operates the Institute of Open Society, in countries remaining in the zone of influence of former Soviet Union he operates a number of similar fundations, which in case of Poland holds the "royal" name of Bathory Foundation. These "philanthropist" institutions have – or had –a substantial influence on composition of consecutive post-communist governments in Eastern Europe, especially governments of big countries - in Poland, with George Soros Fund are linked three first "independent" Prime Ministers (Mazowiecki, Bielecki, Suchocka); in Russia to Soros' "boys" belong such ardent reformers as PM Gajdar, Kirylenko and Niemcov. In his book "Underwriting Democracy" of 1993, George Soros claims to be – together with his associate, professor Jeffrey Sachs – a true Funding Father (or rather a Godfather) of all these "Protocols of Zion" styled reforms, which we had to suffer in Eastern Europe.

Today, with Soros Fund is linked in Poland the most influential journal "Gazeta Wyborcza" – which journal already in 1989 paved the way for the "Solidarity" electoral victory over PZPR, the declining at that time Polish Communist Party. In Slovakia with Soros' Invisible Empire is linked the TV station "Markiza", which helped to remove, during 1998 elections, the supposedly undemocratic Meciar's government. Inside Serbia Soros Fund operated in Kosovo, until 1999 NATO bombings, a Civil Center in Pristina, which fought for the national independence of the local Albanian majority, and in Belgrade it still operates the famous "Radio B-92", which played a substantial role in anti-Milosevic's student riots in 1996/7. (And than, in October 2000, it helped the "civilized" – i.e. bulldozer and Parliament fire assisted – destruction of the last socialist regime in Europe.) At present many of Soros Fund linked intellectuals are in key positions of institutions controlling economies and cultures of former East Block countries, and in Budapest this Foundation operates a whole International University of Central Europe. George Soros plays also an important role in USA foreign politics, already in 1980 he organized, together with his close associates, Secretaries of State Zbig Brzezinsky and Mad Albraight, a National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fund, which is a kind of joint venture of CIA and private business, greed oriented, activities.

The best summary of George Soros humanitarian activities in South-East Europe gave Gilles d'Aymery in an article "Mapping the Human Rights Crowd in the Balkans" published on July 23, 2001 in the Jugoinfo vitrine:

"Behind the veil of legitimacy and humanitarian concerns can be found the same powerful people and organizations such as the Open Society Institute of the billionaire and - as always characterized - philanthropist, George Soros, the Ford Foundation, the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy and many more, financing and using a maze of well known NGO's such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group, etc., as well as more obscure entities ... But, among all of them, shining as the Southern star, is George Soros who, like an immense Jules Verne octopus, extends his tentacles all over Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus as well as the republics of the former Soviet Union. With the help of these various groups (it is possible) not only to shape but to create the news, the agenda and public opinion to further aims which are, in short, the control of the world, its natural resources and the furtherance of the uniform ideal of a perfect world polity made in America."

Despite such richness of this philanthropist activities, the general public hardly knows his name. During our meeting at Ljublana, young, 20 – 25 years old, EU sceptics from several countries virtually ignored the name of Soros, my equal age, 59 years old Swiss German friend from Zurich wrote me that in his well informed country perhaps 2 percent of people knows about this billionaire. And in Poland surely no more than 10 percent of adult population knows who was the true author of widely despised "Balcerowicz's reforms". Despite this "educated" public ignorance, Soros' "missionary" role is perceptible at the planetary scale: according to Schiller's Institute data, the "man of Soros" in the European Commission is professor Romano Prodi, in Malaysia our philanthropist is officially searched for enormous financial frauds, and in Italy he is officially considered persona non grata for similar reasons. We can take for granted that these last facts are only summits of a whole "iceberg" of fraudulent affairs in which our billionaire-philanthropist-politician is – or was – engaged in.

The mystery of his success in world-wide speculation George Soros explained in a surprisingly honest statement, during an interview he gave to the Swiss weekly "L"hebdo" of May 1993. He said "I SPECULATE ON DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE REALITY AND THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF THIS REALITY, UNTIL A CORRECTIONAL MECHANISM OCCURS, WHICH APPROACHES THESE TWO." It is evident that a skillful speculator is not used to wait passively until such discrepancy occurs. To the contrary, with his "creativity of an investor" he purposefully enlarges the gap between the 'real reality" and its public image. (To put this statement into a plain language, a good speculator, knowing principles of the stock exchange, is feeding the public with the fake information – or, in more polite words, with DISINFORMATION – in order to gather personal profits.)

The "liberal" idea of a purposeful construction of a fake image of the world – in order to get the political power – is also expressed in Soros' book "Underwriting democracy" (in French version "Sauver la démocratie a l'Est") published in 1993. He writes there for example: "In a normal state of affairs it is necessary that a movement (a political one, but also commercial, scientific and religious ones – M.G.) is pushed sufficiently far, before forces occur, which are able to correct the deformation (of image of reality) which was at its base." Putting this statement once again into a plain language, it means that the more aggressively a person – or a group, a coterie or a Mafia – is able to lie-up the image of reality, the longer this group is expected to remain in power. (The same maintained Goebbels 70 years ago: the bigger the lie is, the better it holds.)

George Soros even explains in detail how the elaborated by him program of "Americanization" of Eastern Europe works. He informs in "Underwriting Democracy" that behind his philanthropic idea of creation of Open Society Foundations was "the creation of an international web (...) at the heart of which will be the computerized base of (personal) data, which enable the Western Multinational Societies to find candidates, which they are searching for". In short, all these Soros-Fundation educated and kept in computer memories young men and women are prepared to fulfill functions of so-called "influence agents", which behave in a way similar to that of Japanese geishas. These Young Urban Professionals, thanks to their fluent knowledge of languages and multiple, delicate social contacts with bureaucracy in target countries, facilitate the implementation in their homelands not only of Western Multinationals, but also of Western sub-cultures and Western habits of consumption of appropriate, personality enriching, commercial goods.

For the first time I heard that Soros Fundation corrupts young people, from the mouth of Piotr Ikonowicz, about twenty years younger than me leader of the Polish Socialist Party. How does this corruption is organized in detail? In general it takes the form of an ordinary training very similar to the one practiced while teaching young dogs to bark at a "stranger". In case of 'education' of "Soros youth" (SorosJugend) the "food" necessary for such training consists of all these computers, lavish scholarships, luxury cars and invitations for dinners and seminars in four stars hotels. In general this was/is sufficient to bribe not only the young but also adult "intellectuals" in a target country. An example of this gave few years ago the former finance minister of Poland, Grzegorz Kolodko, in a Warsaw satirical "Nie" weekly. He reported there the story how a "well known investor" (his name he dared not to disclose) was able to buy, only at the cost of few dozens of millions of dollars spent for Warsaw's "elite", the Polish Bank Handlowy having the value of 1,5 billion of dollars.

The specific task of all these Bathory Foundation trained 'watchdogs' of Open Society consist of "barking" (in tune with Their Master's Voice), against all individuals which may endanger the Private Property of 'feeding' them Lord. Observing the behavior of journalists linked with this 'watchdog' formation, one finds easily that all their vigor and sense of humor is exploited for the task of continuous, monotonous defamation of national leaders, which have an authentic, popular support. (This was the case, for example, of Soros/NED sponsored Students in Market Theology "Otpor" movement in Serbia; the similar baiting of Lukashenko we witness today in Belorussia.)

Once competent people are removed from key posts of a target country, its pillage, by the gang of "Global Investors", can proceed at full speed, thanks to utter cretins (like Walesa or Buzek in Poland), or opportunists (like Djindzic in Serbia), which get installed at commands of the state. It is evident that in order to obtain the public (i.e. media) consent for such 'reforms', all more observant and honest people have to disappear from the public life. Usually it is sufficient to associate them with despised (by "Soros' Family", of course) 'communists, fascists, reactionaries and populists'; but in particular cases it becomes necessary to kidnap them to the Hague ICTY. (Or simply, to murder them by the 'invisible death squads" – inside Serbia, after Milosevic was ousted from power, about 20 personalities were liquidated in this way.) The best, and at the same the shortest description of the general direction of all "reforms" we have in Eastern Europe was given to me, in May 1999, by an old professor of Slavic literature, Vladimir Bozkov from Skopie, Macedonia. At that time he witnessed nearly every day how B-52 bombers fly towards his former homeland. Impressed by this techno-spectacle he told me during our meeting at Moscow: "THEY WANT TO KILL ALL THINKING PEOPLE". I think that this is the general goal of cultural development, our beloved "Global Investors" are aiming at.

The very ethics of "misinformation as a tool of survival and conquest" belongs to the "aristocratic" pattern of behavior, which spontaneously developed among the Stock Exchange players. It is already in 1813 brothers Johannes and Nathan Rotschild, by a skillful, gossiped at London's Stock Exchange, lie about the outcome of the Waterloo battle, were able to earn in one "scoop" 40 million francs, making out of their family the richest Banking Group in Europe. (By the way, according to Schiller's Institute, George Soros is associated with this famous Rotschild Banking Group.)

Here I come to the point, which I want to stress in the conclusion. Already in the Antiquity the Greek philosopher Socrates argued that (in contradiction with the Biblical version of original sin) people are not evil by their nature, but they are becoming evildoers out of their ignorance. The Global Stock Exchange is by its very nature the place where the MISINFORMATION (or the production of ignorances) has become the principal source of personal enrichment of 'Investors'. By an imitation of Stock Exchange 'Super Stars' like George Soros, every day more and more numerous 'young wolves of interest' are polluting the Planet with lies supposed to bring them their selfish, pecuniary happiness. It is precisely from Stock Exchanges radiates in all directions the Lie – and thus automatically also the Evil and Ugliness – which has become the ever more visible symbol of Our Civilization. (By the way, these B-52 bombers, which 2,5 years ago impressed so much professor Bozkov from Skopie, I can see at present over Tatra Mountains, during their return to Germany from antiterrorist missions in Afghanistan.)

Stock Exchanges and bourgeois Banks were permitted to operate only in 16 century Europe by our religious reformers, dreaming about 'New Jerusalem'. We can trace thus the origin of these modern 'Temples of Lie', back to the Old Jerusalem's Temple of Merchants two thousand years ago. At that time Jewish dissidents considered their famous Temple of Hypocrites as "brigands cavern". Considering this last expression as an 'approaching the reality' description, we can take for sure that nothing will turn for a better in our Brave (observe the military stout of Americans!) World until we kick Global Investors out of our homelands.

MG, November 2001


(Login IGORM)


July 7 2002, 5:04 PM 

Past posts provided an inkling of some of the shady and illegal business
practices of Dwayne Orville Andreas, Chairman and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM) which recently pleaded guilty to anti-trust and price-fixing violations
and agreed to pay a $100 million fine. This post looks at George Soros, another
adviser and original member of the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee
(AUAC) sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
AUAC was initiated in Feb 1994 by CSIS Counselor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
U.S. national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, member of the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR), and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission (TC).

The following comments are on the Jan 23, 1995 issue of The New Yorker, where
there appeared a fascinating and revealing 23-page article by Connie Bruck
titled "The world according to Soros" in which she asks:

"Why did the speculator George Soros suddenly decide to take his life public?
It's a move that puzzles observers, who are also wondering if Soros's expanded
role as a global trouble-shooter makes him an invaluable one-man foreign-policy
machine, as his supporters in the State Department contend, or an unregulated
billionaire with a messiah complex."


For the many years since 1969, when he operated a hedge fund, and even when he
became a philanthropist in 1986 in Budapest by starting his first "open
society" foundation, he sought secrecy and anonymity. It wasn't until 1989,
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that he tried to reposition and
strategically transform himself into a celebrity. In 1992 he himself arranged
an interview with the London Times, where he boasted that his Quantum Fund and
related firms borrowed nine billion dollars and invested ten billion by
speculating against the British pound, and profited two billion dollars when it

Government & World Bank Connections

Bruck points out that the World Bank, through its private-sector arm, the
International Finance Corporation (IFC), is a co-investor with Soros in some
projects in deveoping countries. He has opened a Washington office and
cultivated excellent relationships with high-ranking officials at the State and
Treasury Departments. For example, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State
talks of synchronizing their approach to the former communist countries "with
Germany, France, Great Britain - and with George Soros." Talbott feels that
Soros's approach is compatible with the U.S. government and that Soros fills in
the gap left by dwindling government resources.

Duality and Detachment

Connie Bruck claims that Soros's intractable problem is the pattern of duality
and detachment, with origins in 1944 - "a year that he has said he recalls more
vividly than any other in his life - when, aged fourteen, he posed as the son
of a Hungarian government official as he delivered deportation notices to Jews,
or took possession of property owned by them. Self-control and detachment were
the keys to survival."

Family Background

She points out that even though Soros is of Jewish background, an
assimilationist Jew, (his family name had ben changed long ago from Schwartz
although no reason is given for the change), he has been subjected to
anti-Semitic attacks because he has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes
from his massive philanthropy. Even Soros's mother was anti-semitic, acording
to Soros himself: "My mother was quite anti-Semitic, and ashamed of being
Jewish. Given the culture in which one lived, being Jewish was a clear-cut
stigma, a disadvantage, a handicap - and, therefore, there was always the
desire to transcend it, to escape it." Soros goes on to say that "I am
escaping the particular. I think I am doing exactly that by espousing this
universal concept" -of open society. "In other words, I don't think that you
can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe .... The only way you
can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness."

Pushing The Limits

Bruck describes how Soros likes to push things to the limit, such as
free-market principles. "Indeed, his fondness for what some in the Czech
Republic view as excessive social engineering has led them to bandy it about
that he is a 'closet Communist.' He is a philanthropist of historic proportions
and, now, a statesman in the making, but he is also a consummate gamesman,
adept at finding tax loopholes and operating in gray areas where oversight is
scant and maneuverability wide. Indeed, the sums that he managed not to pay the
I.R.S. for many years put his present giving in a slightly different light. And
the fact that he is perceived by many who have dealt with him as an autocratic
master manipulator does, of course, make his spending many hundreds of millions
of dollars to promote the cultivation of open society a heady paradox."

Not Paying Taxes Via Offshore Quantum Fund

Bruck describes Soros's career as starting upon graduation from the London
School of Economics in 1952, continuing as a stockbroker in various Wall Street
firms from 1956-66. In 1969, he raised four million dollars from private
investors [not named] and launched Quantum fund offshore in the Netherland
Antilles where it was "open only to non-United States citizens and residents
(Soros managed to make himself an exception [though Bruck doesn't explain
how]}, and investors' profits were not taxed until the money was repatriated."
Soros took a 15 percent share of annual profits and re-invested his earnings

Being Fined $75M and Stock Manipulation Case

The Netherland Antilles had very little regulatory oversight and provided an
extremely unregulated environment. " In 1986, Soros was fined seventy-five
thousand dollars by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for having held
positions in excess of speculative limits. (He had distributed them among
various private accounts.) And in 1979 Soros had signed a consent decree (in
which one neither admits nor denies guilt) in United States District Court, in
a Securities and Exchane Commission case involving stock manipulation. The
complaint charged that Soros had accumulated more than fifty-four thousand
shares of stock in a company called Computer Sciences Corporation in the month
before a planned public offering; and, in the days just prior to the offering,
sold the stock aggressively. The complaint stated that Soros's actions, which
induced others to sell as well and drove the price down, caused the offering
price of the shares to be lowered; and he had then proceeded to buy shares, at
the artificially low price."

The technique in this stock manipulation case and other reports suggesting that
Soros obtained his start-up capital from a modern-day Rothschild, reminds me
of the story (described by authors James Dale Davidson and Sir William
Rees-Mogg) of how Nathan M. Rothschild made a financial killing of one million
pounds in London in 1815 - a fantastic sum in those days. This was the time of
the critical Battle of Waterloo between Britain and France. The London markets
were nervously awaiting results. Rothschild, invested considerable sums in a
private intelligence network to learn about important results before they took
place. It was known he bet heavily on a British victory. When he was the first
to get the results, instead of buying more he surprisingly sold and the market
knew he was selling. The result was a market panic collapse, as everyone was
duped into thinking that the British lost. Only after the prices reached
fire-sale levels did Rothschild step in and buy. Within hours, news of the
British victory reached the rest of the market, and prices skyrocketed. It's
become a classic case in investment brokers' circles. (The New York Times, in
its April 1, 1915 edition, reported that Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild had
attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book written by Ignatious Balla
entitled The Romance of the Rothschilds on the grounds that the Waterloo story
about his grandfather was untrue and libelous. The court ruled that the story
was true, dismissed the suit, and ordered Rothschild to pay all court costs.)

Muscling of Markets

Bruck goes on to quote one source as saying, in their view: "Soros's remarkable
career in the financial markets has not sated his 'long quest for legitimacy
... because George knows that in the financial world many will say that his
success is due more to his aggressive positioning and muscling of markets than
to any thoughtful insights.' "

Unusual Sources of Information for Market Decisions

Soros's use of access to intelligence information is described by a former
associate in a case involving Quantum's portfolio of Japanese stocks. "I used
to trade it at home, until about 2 A.M.," the associate said. "One night, at
midnight, George called me and said, 'Sell the Japanese portfolio.' I said,
'There are only two hours of trading left --sell the whole portfolio?' 'The
whole portfolio.' "This person went on to say that Soros is a great
"intelligence officer" since he was in Washington, D.C. when he called him at
midnight, and in the next two days the United States government put
restrictions on trading with Japan.

The author leaves it up to the reader to guess how Soros obtained the
information in advance. However, after watching on TV an episode showing how
'Dirty Dick' Morris, Bill Clinton's campaign adviser, shared a copy of
Hillary's speech with a high-priced prostitute in advance of Hillary's
delivery, anything is possible in the city of the Watergate burglary. In any
case, the author does not prove it was illegally obtained information. However,
there is an implication that pre-released information about a major government
policy shift of this nature might be "leaked information" at the least.

Contacts of Foreign Ministers and Central Bankers

The article further describes how Soros has developed a worldwide network of
contacts, including a host of foreign ministers and central bankers. "Soros
further expanded his access to information by farming out money, to be handled
by promising fund managers all over the world, who then became his sources. And
he made the discovery of 'emerging markets' a staple of his investing before
the term had ever been coined. Upon learning from his sources that liberalizing
measures to open a country to foreign investment were being planned, Soros
would set up a joint venture with a native there which could trade in the local
market; when the market opened, his investments would increase dramatically in

Open Society Foundations

Soros started opening his "open society" foundations in 1984 in Hungary,
followed by China in 1986, the Soviet Union in 1987, and Poland in 1988. Bruck
goes on to say, "While it was true that the foundations' directors had a great
deal of latitude and that each foundation had its own board of directors,
ultimate control resided with Soros. (For many years, the board of the Open
Society Fund ---an umbrella organization ---consisted only of Soros, his wife,
and Bill Zabel.) He was a benevolent autocrat, however, and he stuck to his
resolution to maintain a low profile. It was not really feasible to do
otherwise. As Soros pointed out to me, the foundations were subversive, and
their real motivation had to be 'under wraps' ---particularly since the
different countries were in different stages of political evolution. Recalling
that an article that appeared about him in the late eighties referred to him as
an 'anti--Communist,' Soros said, 'It was highly embarrassing and damaging to
me, because I had a foundation in China, where I said I was a supporter of the
Open Door policy. 'I'm not an anti-Communist,' I said to them. So you would
have to say different things in different countries.' As a result, he went
on, 'all communications had to be private ----I would talk to the government
officials, and say one thing in one country, and another thing in another
country!' He laughed heartily." I wonder which line he has been using in
Ukraine since he started his foundation there in 1990? Between 1990 and 1992,
he established sixteen new foundations in the formerly Communist countries.

CFR Members See Role For Soros, Their Fellow CFR Member

"To Soros fans like Strobe Talbott; Leslie Gelb, the president of the Council
on Foreign Relations; and Mark Malloch Brown, the head of public affairs at the
World Bank, Soros is the trailblazer they hope other businesspeople will
follow, moving to fill the vacuum left by an over-extended and inadequate
government," writes Bruck.

The author does not mention that Strobe Talbott is also a member of the Council
on Foreign Affairs (CFR). Leslie H. Gelb has been a CFR member since 1973.
Other members of CFR who also belong to the American-Ukrainian Advisory
Committee (AUAC), include Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C.
Carlucci, Richard R. Burt and John R. Galvin. And yes, George Soros is also a
member of the CFR. Thus, six of the seven current American-Ukrainian Advisory
Committee members are also CFR members. Dwayne O. Andreas, also a CFR member,
is a past advisor of the AUAC. What a coincidence! Perhaps, the
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee should be called the CFR-Ukraine Advisory
Committee, even though it is sponsored by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.

Also, not mentioned in the article is that George Soros, Henry A. Kissinger and
Dwayne O. Andreas also belong to the secretive "Bildebergers."

And, Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dwayne O. Andreas and Frank C.
Carlucci are also members of the Trilateral Commission, founded by Brzezinski
and David Rockefeller. (The Rockefellers donated the CFR headquarters

I find it curious how such a small and closely linked group of advisers, from
such a private organization such as the CFR, plays such an important, if not
critical, role as the intermediary between the two sovereign countries of
Ukraine and United States in shaping their domestic and foreign policies. Is
the CFR really looking after the best interests of Ukraine, or is it promoting
its own agenda for Ukraine? Are the two necessarily the same? What is the
history of the CFR? (More posts on these questions will be forthcoming).

Soros's Influence on the Government of Ukraine

Bruck states that: "Of all the countries where Soros has placed his
philanthropic bets since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ukraine seems on the
verge of producing the greatest payoff. There, more than anywhere else, Soros
has been able to exert influence at the highest levels of the government to
see his ideas implemented. Indeed, if President Leonid Kuchma succeeds in
bringing about the economic reforms he has recently promised, that over-all
scenario will have been scripted, to a notable degree, by Soros."

Soros's Connections in Ukraine

Two of the early key associates in Soros's endeavour in Ukraine, were the
economist Bohdan Hawrylyshyn and historian Bohdan Krawchenko. Bruck goes on to
say that: "Contrasting the Soros foundation in Ukraine with its counterparts
in other countries, Krawchenko told me, 'There is no other place where the
Soros foundation is so plugged in at the top. We were here when there was
nothing .... 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)." I suppose in other
countries that may have been considered to be a conflict of interest. In 1993,
Soros appointed Bohdan Budzan, as the new executive director of his foundation.
Budzan had been a bureaucrat in the Communist regime.

Soros's Connection to Kuchma and Election Campaigns

In 1994 when Leonid Kuchma was a Presidential candidate, he visited Soros in
the United States. Bruck goes on to say that: "Kuchma was rated an outsider in
a large field of candidates, but in early July he won an upset victory. Soros
says that he had nothing to do with it. However, Evelyn Herfkens, of the World
Bank, says, 'The Bank cannot support election campaigns of reformers; in the
Ukraine, Soros did.' There was, at the least, a massive effort to level the
playing field: the April 1994, bulletin of the Soros foundation lists twelve
grants, in the areas of civil society, education, economics, and mass media,
eleven of them for amounts ranging from five thousand dollars to thirty-one
thousand eight hundred dollars, with most in the lower range. But the twelfth
--to support independent television stations' coverage of the Ukrainian
elections --was for $363,100, an extraordinary infusion of capital in Ukraine,
and one that would be spent in a three-month period."

Bruck also claims that Soros was the key factor in enabling Kuchma to get a
nearly four billion dollar IMF loan for Ukraine, which was contingent on
instituting IMF economic reforms. This he did through Anders Aslund (who by the
way also attends "Bildeberger" meetings) of the Carnegie Institute.
Coincidently, "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."

Soros's Influence in Cabinet and Parliament of Ukraine

Bruck gives some examples of Soros's influence: "Roman Shpek, the Minister of
the Economy, who is leading the reforms, is a graduate of Soros's Management
Training Institute. The Institute for Public Administration, which Krawchenko
heads, has also produced significant players; as Krawchenko told me, 'of the
four hundred or so in the Cabinet apparatus, about thirty have been through our
program --and they are quite an activist group.' " This type of inculcation is
reminescent of the effect that the Mont Pelerin Society had on the Russian
reformists ex-Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar and current Head of Presidential
Staff, Anatoly Chubais as described in a previous post, "IRI's friends in
Russia: the anti-utopia in power" by EIR.

In her other example one can see how Soros exerts his influence to meet his
objectives. Bruck says: "Soros's Center for Privatization and Private
Investments has taken many members of Parliament on trips abroad, to see
economic reforms at work in formerly Communist countries; most recently, a
group of very conservative members went to Prague --shortly before the
confirmation vote on the proposed head of the State Property Fund (in charge of
privatization), Yuri Yehanurov, a reformer favored by Soros and his allies. At
least half the people in the delegation changed their minds, according to
Krawchenko, and Yehanurov was confirmed. And during Soros's 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. One person who attended this task-force meeting said that
Soros's message was 'Work together! Move! Economic education is the thing to do
until you hear from me again!' "

A third example provided by Bruck is the following: "That he, a foreigner, has
been able to stride so purposefully across the political landscape of this
country [Ukraine] is probably due to a number of factors, among them his having
arrived so early in its independence, and stayed; his partnership with
Hawrylyshyn, who is widely admired, and trusted for his patriotism; and the
good will generated by the many programs that the foundation supports in the
areas of education, culture, and health (as well as its more politically
charged agendas). Still, it was not until his man became President that Soros
was able to begin effectively mobilizing for the kind of change that he and
others in the West had long envisioned. Dr. Viktor Pynzenyk, the Deputy Prime
Minister, told me, regarding the team of foreign advisers led by Anders Aslund,
'We know very well what needs to be done. But Kuchma respects Soros, and Kuchma
needs to be convinced by memos prepared by Soros.' "

Soros himself said, "If this isn't meddling in the affairs of a foreign nation,
I don't know what is!", when commenting on his interventionalist role in

Soros's Moscow Foundation Plaqued By Corruption

Bruck describes the corruption in Soros's Moscow foundation. "In the most
recent imbroglio at the Moscow foundation, last spring, it emerged that
employees had lent foundation monies to a car dealership in exchange for more
than sixty cars, several of which the employees took for their own; computers
and other goods that were supposed to be distributed and had been stockpiled in
a warehouse; and roughly fourteen million dollars, which was supposed to have
been spent on programs, instead had been deposited in banks of such poor
reputation that those deposits raised the question, at least, of kickbacks."

Questioning the Independence of the Soros Foundations

Bruck says, "The critical question, this person [a longtime associate of
Soros] said, is 'what it means to be an independent foundation when our work
depends so much on whether George sleeps or doesn't sleep with the President of
a country.' Because Soros 'sleeps with Gligorov, my colleagues in Skopje have
a completely different working style than Sonja Licht's in Belgrade.' Licht is
the president of the board of the Belgrade foundation, which is repeatedly
threatened with being closed down by the government of Slobodan Milosevic. By
contrast, this person said, the Macedonian foundation is widely reputed within
the foundation network to receive special treatment, 'because it is really a
government office.' "

Buying the Government

Bruck goes on to quote a Soros associate on the Albanian foundation, " 'You can
make a very clean Albanian institution, with Albanian people ... avoid
corruption, and have it support civil society. And you will have a nice, clean
institution, but nothing moves. Or, you make believe you are the same, and you
corrupt everybody. You get things moving, schools will be rebuilt, you will
have curriculum reform.' Corruption, this person said, would likely include
everything from the most blatant (kickbacks from those who are given a deal) to
the somewhat more subtle (demands for perks, such as trips to the West, from
government officials whose approval is required for the reforms). 'For me, it
is very difficult to run foundations with links to the government. But maybe I
am too conservative and slow, still following old recipes. He' --Soros--
'feels it's a way of buying the government.' "

Formation of OMRI

In the following, Bruck describes the formation of OMRI, whose posts we now see
on the Internet, and includes some comments by its employees. Soros apparently
got seriously interested in OMRI when he realized its potential for influencing
government officials and academics. Bruck states, "The broadcast stations of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty continue to be funded by the United States
government, but in early 1994 Soros entered a joint venture to acquire the
organization's research institute and, under a fifty-year lease, its archives.
[almost seems like a privatization initiative] Both operations are now
subsumed under a new entity, the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI). Based in
Praque, 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."

As for employee comments, Bruck says, "When Soros's deal with Radio Free Europe
was announced to dozens of foundation employees, at a meeting in Budapest in
the spring of 1994, many were dismayed. 'What we essentially said was "You do
what you want, but don't involve us!" ' one employee recalled. Even in
countries where the governments are friendly, the foundations have to contend
with opposition parties decrying Soros as a greedy capitalist bent on expanding
his empire --and, employees point out, his control of a vast information
network would lend credence to that image. Several told me they find it
particularly ironic that they should have spent most of their lives under
Communist regimes and have finally emerged as open-society partisans --only to
be confronted with such a directive. 'If this media program has to distribute
someone else's truth, it will be a disaster,' one employee commented."

Soros Renouncing Soros Policies

Bruck comments that, "At the Budapest meeting, Soros also said that he was
renouncing his much trumpeted policy of not investing in countries where he had
foundations. In the past, he had said that he was abstaining from such
investments because of the inherent conflict of interest; as a large-scale
philanthropist and, in some places, an adviser to the government, he would be
in a position to exploit a host of opportunities [remember his Japanese
portfolio decision]. Now, in Budapest, he explained that these countries needed
foreign investment, and that other investors would follow his lead. Many in the
audience felt that this sudden reversal would, like the Radio Free Europe deal,
make their tasks on the ground more difficult; when critics charged that
Soros's philanthropy was merely a smoke screen for empire-building, there had
been an effective rebuttal. Disapproval was not unanimous, however; Budzan, of
the Ukrainian foundation, for one, applauded Soros's decision, saying he hoped
that Soros would invest in Ukraine. (Soros recently decided to make Ukraine an
exception and not to invest there, because of the intensity of his high-level

Attempt to Control Two-Thirds of the Retail Banking Market in Hungary

It appears that Soros has plans for some of his foundations that are quite
unusual. For example, Bruck points out that "He recently sought to acquire a
major stake in the largest retail bank in Hungary, on behalf of his foundation
and university there, but negotiations were halted, partly because of public
protest over his proposition: an initial investment of fifty million dollars
(scaling up to two hundred million), which would have made indomitable a bank
that already controls two-thirds of the retail market. ('It is the market,'
the analyst Gyorgy Jaksity commented.)"

Money Buys Power and Influence

Bruck comments that many of Soros's philanthropic donations are strategic with
strings attached. She says, "Soros has for many years been a major contributor
to Helsinki Watch; and that, too, has been strategic, for by directing his
monies toward designated projects he has been able to influence which
situations receive attention (and, perhaps, which ones do not). According to
one person, he recently made a long-term commitment to the Council on Foreign
Relations [recall its members Talbott, Gelb, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Carlucci,
Burt, Galvin, Andreas, and Soros] --under the condition, however, that he be an
anonymous donor. With the council, he co-sponsored a conference on NATO, held
at the C.E.U. in Budapest in November of 1993, and delivered a paper he had
written. Commenting on Soros's talk, one person told me, 'A lot of people were
sitting there shaking their heads --but he was paying the bills.' "

Soros's Anti-Semitism

Bruck writes, "The Moscow foundation is being re-constituted, with a new board
and new executives. The search for board members has been launched in typical
Soros fashion: twenty or so prospective candidates were taken on a quick tour,
by chartered plane, of Soros foundations in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and
Ukraine; they were in Kiev and Budapest during Soros's visits there, in
September. Although nearly all the candidates appeared to be in their fifties
and sixties, one Soros associate told me that it was like shepherding a group
of schoolchildren; they seemed more interested in the next snack period than in
the endless round of meetings arranged for them. A Russian candidate told me at
the end of the trip, 'There was too much information to absorb. But travelling
around in our own plane -- now, that was interesting!' "

Bruck continues, "I told Soros that this did not seem like money well spent. He
responded, rather sharply, 'Look, how do you mobilize people? You ask for
recommendations, and you look at them ... So I asked for recommendations, and I
invited people, took them on the trip, and it turned out that they were all too
old and too Jewish! ' He chuckled. 'And not acceptable. I mean, you can't be
that Jewish in Russia. So I told them, 'You can't have more than one-third Jews
on the board.' " Thus, it appears that Soros disqualified two-thirds of the
prospective board members, simply because they were Jewish.

Open Society

In her article, Connie Bruck does not review Soros's "open-society" philosophy
which is his guiding principles for his philanthropic investments. The term
sounds benign and has a very positive, self-evident connotation, especially
when contrasted with the communist "closed-societies" of the former Soviet
Union. But what is the vision of George Soros's "open-society" for these
countries? Perhaps his book "Soros on Soros" (ISBN 0-471-12014-6, 1995) may
shed some light; in particular his section titled Brave New World (p.282-3)
below. It raises serious questions as to the kind of society Soros envisions
for Ukraine and other FSU countries where he is advising and investing. Note
the decline in personal relationships, euthanasia, and the practicality of
brainwashing as options of this "open society."

Stefan Lemieszewski


(Login IGORM)

Forbes on Soros

July 7 2002, 5:05 PM 

Forbes on Soros

Forbes Magazine

Beware of billionaires bearing gifts

Richard C. Morais

IF YOU'VE DIMLY wondered what is happening in Albania, we can, in a
brief sentence,
explain: George Soros' friends are coming out on top.

Late in February, armed gangs led by gangsters and ex-Communists, many
of them
veterans of the old secret police state, all but toppled an elected
liberal government, and
forced the president to appoint a neo-Communist as prime minister. While
this was
happening, George Soros sat in his London town house and calmly told
FORBES that his
Albanian Foundation is "an excellent group very much on top of the

On top is right: Soros has kept afloat a newspaper, Koha Jone, that
egged on the coupists
with inflammatory antigovernment propaganda. A pyramid scheme had
collapsed, costing
many people their savings, and the Soros-supported paper effectively
made a call to arms.
A top official of the Soros foundation in Tirana boasted to stunned
observers: "[President]
Berisha's going. We got him."

In an age-old tradition of European political patronage, this
multibillionaire speculator
routinely taps his billions to fund journals, politicians and educators
in Europe and
elsewhere. More often than not, these have an exclusively left-wing
Soros, 67, is Hungarian-born but a U.S. citizen. He recently caused a
flutter in the
February issue of the Atlantic Monthly by penning a windy attack on free

Why is George Soros so cozy with people and causes that might be
expected to view his
kind as parasites?

To understand his charitable works FORBES visited the Soros Foundation-
cream-colored villa in the hills of Budapest. Hungary is not only Soros'
native land but
where his charities have the longest history. There we met Miklos
Vasarhelyi, the
80-year-old president of the Soros-funded foundation. This man, who
dispenses millions of
dollars a year in a rather poor country, has an interesting past.
Vasarhelyi was press
officer to Imre Nagy, the Communist Prime Minister executed in 1958 for
being too
independent. Vasarhelyi stood trial along with Nagy after Soviet tanks
crushed the 1956
Hungarian uprising. Nagy and most others were hanged or sentenced to
life. Vasarhelyi
got just five years, the lightest punishment of the pack.

Thanks to George Soros, this former Communist has risen again. A
political party he
helped found is a partner in the present government. That government is
a coalition of
ex-Communists (now the Hungarian Socialist Party) and a left-liberal
group, the Alliance of
Free Democrats, a coalition that came to power in 1994 after defeating a
rather ineffectual
moderate government. Soros blessed the election results.

"These are strong, serious-minded people," he publicly said of the
ex-Communists. "I have great expectations in general." Not everyone
agreed. One
prominent foreign businessman who first considered, then rejected, doing
business in
Hungary, described the current government as a "bunch of clowns who
haven't a clue as to
how to run an economy."

Soros has since banged heads with Socialist Prime Minister Gyula Horn,
but remains
close to his coalition partner, the Alliance of Free Democrats. He
provides many AFD
leaders with income. Besides Vasarhelyi, for example, Soros' Hungarian
lawyer, Alajos
Dornbach, is a top-ranked AFD official and a legal adviser to the
Soros is the great philanthropist of our age--or so his press constantly
remind us. Every
year, according to his flacks, he gives away more than $300 million
through a network of
1,000 employees in 30 countries. When Russian scientists were starving
he gave each a
year's salary; he brought fresh water to besieged Bosnians; he's
providing kindergartens for
Gypsies. Good deeds, all.

But there is another side to the giving, a rather nutty political side.
The 50 offices
maintained by Soros money are spread from Haiti to Mongolia, and all
claim that their
works are based on philosopher Sir Karl Popper's views of tolerant, open
societies. Thus a
common name: Open Society Institute.

Behind the nuttiness, there is a consistency. "The people Soros hires,"
says Mark
Almond, a respected Oxford University lecturer, "are noted for their
anti-Thatcherite views.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a religious dissident or staunch
anti-Communist in his

Johnathan Sunley, the Budapest-based director of The Windsor Group, puts
it even more
strongly: "Soros is engaged in a one-dimensional ideological laundering
of the old
Communist/nomenklatura at the expense of those who didn't get trips
abroad." Sunley
means, of course, that real anti-Communists couldn't travel abroad in
Communist days;
only those in official favor could. Soros has adopted many of these
formerly pampered,
generally moderate Marxists.

"Soros," says Peter Bod, a former cabinet minister and central bank
governor in Hungary,
"is the most influential nonelected politician east of the Alps." His
power stems not from
the ballot box but from his bank account. He wants to see that the old
dictatorships are replaced--not with free market democracies, but with

"Yes," the prickly billionaire conceded in an interview with FORBES,
"clearly there is a
political bias in the [Soros] foundation."

Look at the trustees of his U.S. foundation and you will see where the
bias lies. One of
them is the notorious Lani Guinier, the law professor Bill Clinton tried
to nominate as head
of the civil rights division of the Justice Department. Once her
intemperate brand of politics
was examined--such as minority veto power over legislation- - even
Clinton backed away
from her and withdrew his support.

President of the Open Society Institute in the U.S. is Aryeh Neier, a
human rights
advocate who often embraces extreme liberal positions.

So be careful when you apply the term "philanthropy" to Soros' spending.
Not all his
causes are political, but he's clearly a would- be social engineer. You
wouldn't get far in a
U.S. election running on a Soros-style platform, but you might feel
quite at home in a lot of
U.S. universities.

But back to Hungary. Soros has been working in his native Hungary for
the past 13 years.
In the early 1980s he was quietly supporting dissidents in Central and
Eastern Europe. It
was then that the mercurial Vasarhelyi showed up at Columbia University
in New York,
where he met Soros. The ex-Communist hack seems to have had a
considerable influence
on the billionaire. With Vasarhelyi's help Soros made a deal in 1984
with the
then-government. The first Soros Hungarian foundation had a budget of $3
million and was
jointly run by Soros and the Communists. "One of Soros' conditions was
that I should be
his personal representative, " says Vasarhelyi. "He had excellent
judgment," says Soros,
"and a good understanding of what was possible and what wasn't."

Interesting guy. Vasarhelyi's understanding of what is possible has
undergone a number of
changes. In 1936 and 1937 he studied political science in Rome because
he thought
"Italian Fascism showed the way out of an unjust society." He secretly
joined the
Hungarian Communist Party in 1939 and officially became a member of the
Democratic Party. "[The Communist Party] instructed [me] to join the
Social Democratic
Party," he wrote in his 1989 autobiography, "to try and get ahold of key
positions, but to
continue following the leadership of the Communist Party."

By the late 1940s the Communists ruled Hungary and Vasarhelyi became a
"journalist" spouting pure Communist propaganda. Then he turned his coat
again. By the
mid-1950s, he had joined the ranks of "goulash" Communists disenchanted
by Stalinism,
but still in love with Karl Marx. After serving his relatively mild
prison term, Vasarhelyi
eventually got a job at a literature academy, was given a passport and
allowed to travel.
The dissidents we talked to said dissidents normally didn't get such
perks. Says OSI's
Neier: "We always regarded him as strongly committed to the Open Society
and he is held in high regard."

Everyone likes Vasarhelyi. References to him are to be found in recently
released internal
records of Communist Party meetings about a 1989 political
demonstration. Vasarhelyi
and others negotiated with the government on behalf of the dissidents.
According to the
records: "it is worth talking to...Vasarhelyi on whom we have influence"
and "if the
[speeches] get into Vasarhelyi's hands we would be able to get ahold of
them." Vasarhelyi
strenuously denies collaborating with the Communists.

Maybe that was wishful thinking, but it's a revealing comment
nonetheless. Vasarhelyi of
course no longer calls himself a Communist but neither is he a big
believer in free markets.
"I was and always am very critical of capitalism," Vasarhelyi tells

Give Soros credit. His money does do considerable good. Between 1984 and
1989 he and
Vasarhelyi helped undermine the Communist Party' s control of
information by trading
photocopying machines to cultural and educational institutes for
Hungarian currency; the
currency was then used to give grants to dissidents and to writers of
all political stripes.
But along the way Soros seems to have developed delusions of grandeur.
He wasn't
satisfied with helping end Communist totalitarianism. He wanted to
decide what kind of
government would replace it. In 1990 a new center-right coalition
government was voted
into power in Hungary which killed the Soros-government agreement.
That's when the
foundation began its partisan support.

Vasarhelyi denies that there is any political bias in his foundation.
The Soros Foundation,
for example, gives to the youth clubs and pays for Gypsy dance troupes
(the Gypsies are
a repressed minority in Europe).

Gabor Ivanyi is a former AFD member of parliament, and a Methodist
minister who runs
homeless shelters in Budapest. Last year Soros Foundation Hungary gave
Ivanyi $38,000
for mattresses, an ambulance to pick up homeless who were freezing on
the streets and
for TB treatments. Ivanyi is a genuine man of goodwill.

But study the foundation's 1980s modus operandi and you'll see it always
applauded works with politically motivated projects. With Vasarhelyi's
AFD pals in power
again, we found the relationship with certain sectors of government very
cozy. The
AFD-controlled culture ministry and the Soros foundation, for example,
both subsidize
periodicals. We matched the most recently published lists of subsidies
and found 77% of
the periodicals that got major government handouts also received
subsidies from the Soros
foundation. It seems to us a foundation dedicated to an Open Society
would go out of its
way to assist periodicals not supported by the government of the day.

How reformed are Soros' ex-Communists? Not very. A few years back,
Gyorgy Litvan, a
Soros friend of longstanding, a former adviser to the foundation's board
and director of an
institute given Soros' grants, attacked historian Maria Schmidt. She had
uncovered secret
police files indirectly confirming that Alger Hiss had been a Soviet
spy. Her work was
widely published in the U.S. and led to a Reader's Digest article in
Hungary. Then she
bumped into Litvan. Schmidt says Litvan lambasted her for her
"mentality," and said he
would do everything he could to stop her working as an academic in
Litvan tells FORBES he never said such a thing, but admits he used his
power to block her
from making a documentary on the secret police. "I dislike her," he
says. "She is on the
far right." This Soros friend has an interesting idea of what
constitutes "far right." It seems
to be anyone to the right of Alger Hiss.

Interviewing him in London, FORBES asked Soros why he supports turncoats
like Litvan
and Vasarhelyi. His reply was--shall we say- -a bit confusing. "They [as
know better what democracy is than perhaps those who were always opposed
to [the
regime]." What an insult to those true democrats who paid, sometimes
with their lives, for
their beliefs.

That's outrageous, typical Soros gobbledygook. Exactly what does he
believe in? A
utopian vision of a sort of borderless, multicultural world, where
people respect one another
and the well-to-do take care of the less-well-off. But Soros' friend
Byron Wien, managing
director of Morgan Stanley International, comes closer to the truth when
he says: "Soros
is terrified of right-wing nationalism."

Understandable perhaps in a man who spent his boyhood watching Nazis and
Hungarian supporters at work. In testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1994,
Soros insisted
that Eastern Europe's ex-Communists "want to get away from Communism as
far as
possible. Their reemergence constitutes a welcome extension of the
spectrum." Soros went on: "The real danger is the emergence of would-be
dictatorships. They are playing in a field definitely tilted in their

Thus, for Soros, a rosy glow seems to surround the left, while
conservatism seems, to
him, a stand-in for Nazism. That may seem relatively benign when
expounded in American
universities. It is pure poison in Eastern and Central Europe, which
badly need to develop
their free markets.

Soros annually pumps some $60 million into outfits in Hungary, among
them his Central
European University, whose goal is to educate an "administrative elite."
Here students can
not only bone up on macroeconomics but also on such American imports as
literary theory and how the media "constructs gender and sexuality,
whether heterosexual
or homosexual."

We found Soros' "cultural elite" unbelievably arrogant. A chirpy Open
Society Institute
press officer told us over a five-star Kempinski Hotel breakfast that
she wanted FORBES to
see what Soros "means to the little people."

Vaclav Klaus, the Czech Republic's prime minister and a tireless
advocate of free markets,
has a good notion of what Soros' ideas mean to "the little people."
Klaus, in effect, kicked
Central European University out of Prague. The no-nonsense Klaus wasn't
afraid of Soros'
ideas. He just didn't want Soros money buying up Czech intellectuals.

Soros returned the insult: "Klaus embodies the worst of the Western
Maybe, but the Czech Republic is easily the most prosperous, modern
economy in Central
or Eastern Europe.

Say this for Soros: He knows his way around the law. His country
foundations are usually
local legal entities but often receive funds, says his New York press
officer, from the New
York-domiciled foundations. That's very interesting.

According to the IRS tax code, to enjoy tax-exempt status a private
foundation cannot
"intervene, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf
of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office...."

You can dismiss George Soros as a kooky rich man who uses his money to
politicians and intellectuals the way some rich people collect castles
and old masters. And
in a way he is ridiculous, flying about the world, holding press
conferences and writing
books and articles that nobody can understand.

On the other hand, money can do a lot of harm in politics, especially in
poor, small


(Login IGORM)


July 7 2002, 5:06 PM 


by Silvana Oruc Ivos

Vjesnik, Zagreb, Croatia, July 7 1999

ZAGREB - The controversial American billionaire George Soros, is
continuing his
"war" against Croatian President Dr. Franjo Tudjman.

In the latest edition of the German weekly Focus (27/1999), he drew a
between the Croatian President and Slobodan Milosevic, while reproaching
members for being too tolerant towards Croatia.

The interview to a certain extent sheds light on the affair which has
been raging in
Croatian media during the past few days, and which has portrayed this
benefactor and stock broker as either a victim or a "perpetrator",
depending on who
is writing or speaking about him.

As it is known, Vesna Skare-Ozbolt recently stated in Vienna, that
during a
discussion following a lecture, Soros announced that the next major task
of his
'Open Society' is "to overthrow Tudjman's dictatorship." The media in
financed by Soros immediately hastened to deny this, claiming that Soros
did not
mention such a thing in his written presentation. However, neither Soros
nor his
media in Croatia, at least for now, have not denied the claims by the
ambassador in Vienna, that Soros made the statement during a discussion,

responding to a question that was forwarded to him.

The event received a diplomatic dimension once the State Department
coming to Soros' defense and requesting that Croatian politicians and
media to
refrain from criticism or, as it was stated, attacks against him and his

However, the article in Focus has an added significance. Primarily due
to the fact
that in a foreign weekly, without any restraint, Soros drew a parallel
between the
Croatian president and Slobodan Milosevic, a person who has caused four
wars in this region, is responsible for the most serious war crimes and
violations of
human rights and has been indicted for this by The Hague Tribunal. After
all, the
CIA has put in motion a plan to overthrow Milosevic and the USA and its
have designated him as a political pariah.

In response to an explicit question by Focus: "Do you see any difference
Milosevic and the Croatian President Tudjman?," Soros responded: "There
is no
large difference. They both play the same keyboard," adding that due to
cooperation with Croatia in the war agaainst Yugoslavia, NATO has been
tolerant of "antidemocratic developments" in Croatia, whereby NATO and
its allies
are "making a huge mistake".

This, indeed, was not all. Mister Soros, who in the interview complains
that the
Croatian "regime accuses him of wanting to overthrow Tudjman," asserted
that ,
when the media is in question, "pressure in Croatia is considerably
stronger than in
Yugoslavia" and that he is concerned because the West is not doing much
more in
supporting independent media.

Naturally, Mister Soros has a right to his own opinion and assessment,
but we also,
in this case at least, have the right to wonder about his one-sidedness.
reason for this is that the West (whose "ideology" Soros represents)
bombarded Serbian television and Serbian radio stations with the excuse
that they
were participating in Milosevic's unprecedented atrocities in Kosovo and
that they
were lying just like Goebbels' propaganda did.

It would be too tiring to prove all the vile and inappropriate character
of this Soros'
comparison between Dr. Tudman and Milosevic, especially because
ultimately it
would not have any special effect insofar as similar claims have been
made by
domestic papers in Croatia so freely and so wholeheartedly financed on
behalf of
the 'Open Society' by Mister Soros.

The thing which does make sense is the fact that - if somebody is
astounded by
someone unjustly accusing them of wanting to overthrow a democratically
president of a country, while in the meantime making statements similar
to those in
the latest issue of Focus - he is obviously being hypocritical.

Perhaps, we should end with an interesting remark, which sheds true
light on the
whole "affair". In response to a question by Focus whether he in the
future intends
to "invest in south-eastern Europe, particularly in Kosovo," Soros
responded that
Kosovo will be an "interesting region" in the future in which he would
invest. He
added that Kosovo, however, is too small and that is why "a larger
region must be
created!" [Croatian patriotic media frequently accuse Soros in
particular and the
West in general of trying to retreate Yugoslavia]


(Login IGORM)


July 7 2002, 5:07 PM 


By: Efraim Menashe

Jerusalem, Israel--It isn't easy being a conspiracy researcher- let alone a
Jewish conspiracy researcher- when so many Jews are involved in political
intrigue and world domination. This is a fact any objective
thinker must conclude- whether the researcher is a Jew or not. As a Jew,
the decision is harder to accept.

But I guess I am an objective thinker before I am a Jew, and for that
reason I am prepared to publicly admit to all who are reading that indeed,
there is a conspiracy to control and dominate the world, and
that many, many Jews play, and have played a role, in that conspiracy. For
this is not speculation, it is fact. The names are well known to all:
Warburg, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, the Bronfmans, Jacob Shiff, Bernard
Baruch, Judah Benjamin, etc. However, one must remember that included in
the conspiracy are also the Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan, Cecil Rhodes, the
British Royal Family, the Vatican, the French and Italian members of the
"NWO planning committee." Most of the players in the NWO arena are not
Jews, if all the members are included.

The problem is that for some reason only the Rothschilds are associated
with being behind the creation of "the Illuminati." All the conspiracy
literature points the sole finger at this family for creating the
Illuminati and causing revolutions in France, Russia, the US, the murder of
Lincoln, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the crash of l929, the Bank
of England, two World Wars: in fact, everything that supposedly happens in
the NWO is carried out via "agents of Rothschild." It is quite amazing how
every conspiracy researcher whether it is Tex Marrs, David Icke, Guradas,
Ralph Epperson, Eustice Mullins, John Coleman, it doesn't matter
from which perspective they came to understand the grand conspiracy, they
all agree on one thing that
is that the "Rothschilds who are behind everything."
The Schiffs, the Warburgs, Bernard Baruch, are said to be "agents of
Rothschilds" but this may only mean that no other higher chain of command
has been identified. None of these so-called agents ever admitted to being
an agent, nor do we really know if they were. The way the conspiracy is
described in the revisionist view of history, it is just assumed that they
are, as it is assumed that the Rothschilds are behind the creation of the
Illuminati. I have yet to see any proof that
this is the case. I am not suggesting that the Rothschilds are not players
in the NWO, only that they are far from being the only ones and it has
never been shown by any conspiracy researcher that they are indeed,
"Chairmen of the Board."

It is possible that the Rothschilds agreed to have all the blame placed on
them so there would be an outlet for those observant people who discovered
the conspiracy. The family appears to have accepted that they would be
blamed for the conspiracy and this would cause an increase in
anti-semitism. The Rothschilds may have gone along with this in order to
gain more power in the circle of powerbrokers.

It doesn't seem to occur to the the Rothschilds' accusers that the
likelihood of so much power being accumulated by one family is infinitely
remote. What is never asked is "What was so special about the policies of
the Rothschilds?" So they lent money to kings. Couldn't other rich people
do that? How come no
king ever tried to kill one of them to get rid of his debt? There is no
recorded event anywhere of any type of opposition to Rothschilds' evil
practices. Why not? the Knights Templer made enemies and were defeated
by their enemies. How come the Rothschilds had no enemies who took revenge?
How is it possible that a family dynasty can attain such power and wealth
yet have no enemies?

Another question which needs to be answered is: "Did the Rothschilds run
the Illuminati on their own?" Did they alone create all the intrigue and
figure out all the plots and carry out the plans to cause the
revolutions and wars?

The running of the conspiracy is so complex, it defies all logic to suggest
that it can be managed by just only one family. They must have had
promoters and advocates who were prepared to go along with them. Yet there
isn't one recorded event of a rebellion by the people who were following
them or any other powerbroker competing for the top spot. The
so-called Rothschilds' agents, Schiff, Benjamin, Warburg, Baruch, all went
along without any challenge Rothschilds' leadership. Why? Since when has
such power entrenched in one family not met with

If the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds with the Illuminati created
the French revolution is true, and that the War of 1812, the Civil War,
of Abraham Lincoln, the Russian revolution, the Russian-Japan war were
Rothschild inspired, how is it that hrough all of these years the family
was able to
keep themselves so completely hidden from the public and free of blame? Why
are they so untouchable? Perhaps the near "supermen" status many conspiracy
researchers give the Rothschilds needs to be reevaluated. It simply isn't
possible for one family to be so powerful over a period of 200 years and
for one family to control everything the way conspiracy
researchers present it.

I am prepared to buy that the Rothschilds from their beginnings are one of
the world's lowest form of lifes and responsible for the death of hundreds
of millions
of people, Jews included. They may even be a devil worshipers. The entire
family is a shame to the Jewish people. They have no love for the Jewish
people and they have caused much hardship for their brethren. So they are
criminals but they are just one powerful family out of many. Why are they
being singled out as sitting on top of the heap? Who are all the others
that we don't hear about?

How could one family have become so powerful that even the Kings of Europe
they were lending money to never tried to eliminate the debt by eliminating
the moneylender? Certainly these heads of state had the
means, militarily and in other ways, to handle the
Rothschilds in order not to have to repay debts. However no proof exists
anywhere to prove that the Rothschilds were behind the creation of the

My point is that they may have been involved in the affair, but they aren't
the sole architects of the conspiracy.

Fellow conspiracy researchers: there is no Jewish conspiracy. There are
plenty of Jews wrapped up in the quest for a NWO, but to ascribe the entire
agenda to a small group of Jews, is plainly wrong. The anti-Semites like to
point out "how powerful the Jews are", but are the Jews as a people so
powerful or is a tiny group of Jews dominating the power?

Are these Jews really the ones in charge of the entire agenda to enslave
the world? Hardly. The notion that there is a cabal of Jews who sit
together once a year and decide how to control the world, and they do this
on behalf of some Jewish entity, or Israel, is what we are asked to
believe. If such a cabal exists, and the anti-Semites say it has existed
for centuries, then where is one recorded historical event of a group of
Jews assembling to plan their control over the world? There is no proof
anywhere showing that The Protocols of Zion was describing a group of Jews
intent on dominating the world so they, the Jews, would be kings. Indeed
the protocols was probably an accurate description of a group of people
bent on world
domination. There may have been some Jews sitting at the table. I believe
that. I just don't believe that the majority were Jews. If not, then who
are the others? Who sits at that table other than the selected Jewish

There are Jews involved in the conspiracy to subject the world to a
one-world government, no question of that, yet none of them are
representing any Jews other than themselves. We know the Jewish masses are
wonderful, hardworking educated people. The select few who are rich and are
powerbrokers are a disgrace and should be exposed. How Israel's leadership
has been thoroughly compromised and corrupted by the international Jewish
powerbrokers should also be exposed. Rich, powerful Jews abroad exploit
Israel for the gain of the people they work for. If these truths were
exposed at least the issue would be confronted and the wound could, at
least, start to heal.

Unlike the majority of Jews, I have no reason to respect people like George
Soros or Edgar Bronfman. They don't represent anyone other than other
powerbrokers. I offer no guilt for these people. They are gangsters and
like all other gangsters, they need to be punished. It smears the entire
Jewish people for these people to claim they are "Jewish leaders." I'm one
Jew/Israeli who never voted for Bronfman and object to his involvement in
Jewish affairs and Israeli diplomacy. Jews like Soros and Bronfman are a
cancer in the body of the Jewish people and to the state of Israel. I'm all
for exposing these criminals and letting them face justice. Perhaps that's
the difference between me and the rest of my fellow Jews: I don't care if
we "wash our dirty laundry in front of the goyim," we need to wash our
dirty laundry in
front of ourselves.

That, fellow conspiracy researchers, is where I end my apologies. I don't
believe there is a Jewish conspiracy or ever was. What happened was that
rich and unscrupulous Jews throughout the past 300 years were prepared to
take the blame for the conspiracy in exchange for power and influence. They
believed that a little exploitation of your fellow Jews wasn't such a high
price to pay if it meant personal advancement. Edgar Bronfman and George
Soros were the Baruchs and Warburgs of a generation ago. Nothing changes in
the conspiracy. Jews play in the game today as they did then. However I am
not sure they are in charge today anymore than they were then.

Let's not forget that the Vatican, the French, German, and Italian
families, and the existing Monarchies in Europe, are still major sources of
political and economic power in the world. The Jews are just one player in
a game with many players. The only
difference is that the Jews and Israel ARE in the news and identifiable.
Thus it's easy to point the finger at the Jews because they stand out due
to their economic strength. The others remain hidden behind thrones and
Churches and a European tradition of secrecy. The Jews are featured in the
mainstream media while everything the Vatican and the others do are held in
secret so names are not recognizable.

No fellow researchers, the Jews don't control the NWO. This conclusion may
not be accepted by the Spotlight crowd who are looking for the simple
answer and to them, it is just to blame the Jews for world
domination. This is what the non-Jewish NWO players have planned and
executed as a cunning policy to keep their plan for a one-world government
secret: When it is threatened with exposure, get a few stooges to "blame
the Jews" then have a few other dupes point the finger at the stooges and
scream "anti-Semite."

While the Spotlight crowd may not be capable of realizing how they are
being duped, I hope all other sincere conspiracy researchers begin to
question their basic contention that "the Rothschilds are behind the
conspiracy to dominate the world." While the Rothschilds may be members of
the team, they are far from being a one-man show


(Login IGORM)

The Independent Treasury Act of 1921

July 8 2002, 7:51 AM 

The Independent Treasury Act of 1921

The Independent Treasury Act of 1921 suspended the de jure (meaning
"by right of legal establishment") Treasury Department of the United
States government. Our Congress turned the treasury department over to
a private corporation, the Federal Reserve and their agents. The bulk
of the ownership of the Federal Reserve System, a very well kept
secret from the American Citizen, is held by these banking interests:

Rothschild Bank of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Lehman Brothers of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York


(Login IGORM)

Re: The Independent Treasury Act of 1921

July 10 2002, 5:55 PM 

Soros puts trust in man with a revamp plan [Lots of tidbits]
Financial Times | 6/13/02 / posted 6/15

Posted on 06/15/2002 3:57 PM Pacific by NativeNewYorker

When George Soros, (pictured) the billionaire investor, launched his Open Society fund in 1979 to provide scholarships for black university students in South Africa, he did not know how the foundation would develop. He did not map out a course for expansion, and he did not set a budget.
Nearly a quarter century later, the Open Society Institute (OSI) oversees foundations in more than 30 countries and regions, doling out from $450m-$500m a year to promote "open society" values, such as a free media and education.

It is one of the five biggest US foundations, as measured by expenditures, along with those managed for the Gates, Lilly and Ford families. There is now a detailed budget. And the institute is embarking on its first big reorganisation.

Mr Soros is the man outlining the new master plan. But the man charged with implementing it is Aryeh Neier.

Mr Neier was hired as president of the OSI and the Soros foundation network in 1993, following a 17-year career at the American Civil Liberties Union. He then went on to found Human Rights Watch.

At Soros, he inherited a complex organisation, composed of dozens of national and regional foundations that operate with relative autonomy around the world as well as a New York headquarters where network-wide programmes are based.

"It's best to think of it as a matrix. The vertical lines are the national foundations, and the horizontal lines are the network programmes," Mr Neier said.

The head office parcels out money to each foundation and each programme, but those entities make their own grant decisions and run their own projects, provided they fit into the open society strategy.

Joining Soros "complicated my life in one respect, but . . . simplified it in another," Mr Neier said. "In my other jobs, I spent a lot of time raising money."

Now, his budget comes from two sources: Mr Soros himself and family trusts set up to supplement that contribution. "His income fluctuates, so the amount from the family trusts compensates for that," Mr Neier explained.

Working for a living donor means exhaustive consultation. "I just came from his office, I'm going to his home for dinner tonight and I'll be in an all-day meeting with him tomorrow," Mr Neier reported recently. But it also makes his job more interesting because the OSI can take risks.

"Trustees [managing on behalf of a deceased donor] feel a fiduciary responsibility not to waste money," he said. "The living donor has the attitude of 'It's my money and if I don't succeed or if I waste it, I'm the one who suffers'."

d3 Success is difficult to measure in the philanthropic world. But foundations are commonly rated by the percentage of money they spend on giving activities versus administration. The OSI and the Soros network spend from 15 to 20 per cent on the latter - about average. However, some of that money goes to on-the-ground operations, which most foundations do not undertake, Mr Neier said.

"There's always waste, there are always mistakes . . . but on the whole, I think there is less waste than in other organisations," he said. "Our decentralisation and our local expertise has been immensely valuable." For example, the Soros foundations pay local rather than US salaries.

Reviews from the field are generally positive. "They do some very good work," said Josh Machleder, of Internews, which has partnered with the OSI on media projects in Uzbekistan. Still, he has heard one criticism: "They're mostly working in the safer arenas that are non-contestable like education and culture . . . rather than projects that are groundbreaking in democratisation and economic liberalisation."

But the OSI has pushed controversial programmes in other regions, including a needle exchange programme to stop the spread of HIV among drug addicts in the former Soviet states and a campaign to reform US prisons before the issue became popular.

d3 In 1997, Mr Soros circulated a letter saying that he would sustain the OSI and the foundations network only through 2010. "That date is not rigid," according to Mr Neier. But the foundations' expenditures, which reached a peak of $560m in 1999, are being reduced.

"The resources are not unlimited [and] it was never planned as a permanent institution. It was established to take advantage of a revolutionary moment" first in South Africa, then central and eastern Europe, then the former Soviet states, then southeast Asia and other areas of Africa, Mr Neier said.

Over the next four years, OSI will exit areas in which the "revolution" is over and open society values are entrenched. Foundations in eight of the countries slated to join the European Union in 2004 will see their budgets cut to a collective $10m, and there will be a similar reduction in the Balkans "a few years down the road", according to a May 17 memo from Mr Soros.

Foundations in Russia, Mongolia and South Africa will be asked to look for more outside funding, while US programmes will reduce their grant-making activity.

Mr Neier describes the new strategy not as a retrenchment but a shift in focus. The OSI will increase its involvement in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and southeast Asia, but through network programmes instead of new national foundations.

Mr Neier recently sent a colleague to Beirut to investigate the needs in Lebanon.

In the US, the OSI will expand its Washington office and increase its lobbying efforts through the Open Society Policy Center, a taxable group.

"There's a limit to how much we can spend [so] our hope is to influence public policy and get the governments to contribute," Mr Neier said. "We're shifting from a bottom-up approach to complementing that with a top-down effort."


(Login IGORM)

Bush and the Billionaire: How Insider Capitalism Benefited W.Bush

July 19 2002, 6:12 PM 


Bush and the Billionaire: How Insider Capitalism Benefited W.
07/17/2002 @ 12:08am
E-mail this Post
It's awfully tough to be Mr. Corporate Responsibility after you have profited from the actions of an irresponsible corporation that engaged in a shady deal. George W. Bush is finding that out, for as he tries desperately to stay ahead of the assorted corporate scandals, his own past as a failed oil man has emerged as an issue for reporters, columnists, and the cable-news crowd. What's drawn the most attention is Bush's handling of his 1990 Harken stock deal. Much of that story was public during the presidential election of 2000 (and it had been a minor issue when Bush first ran for governor of Texas in 1994). But two years ago, few seemed to care that Bush had made a bundle through his association with an oil company that employed phony accounting, that he benefited by selling shares in this troubled company (in which he happened to be a director) before these problems became known publicly, and that he failed to meet the federal deadline for disclosing this stock dump (as well as several others).

Now, reporters jump on any new factoid they can unearth. A few days ago, it was reported Bush had received a "flash report" in early June 1990--sixteen days before he sold his Harken holdings--that might have indicated the company was facing a huge loss. The White House says Bush believed the company was going to lose $9 million that quarter--not $23 million, as the losses turned out to be. The latest news, courtesy of Associated Press, is that Bush signed a "lockup" letter on April 3, 1990, pledging not to sell his Harken stock for six months after a proposed public stock offering. Yet two months later, he cashed out his Harken shares for nearly $850,000--a transaction that bolstered his financial position at a crucial time, for he had to cover a loan he earlier used to purchase the Texas Ranger baseball team.

With the public offering unconsummated at that point, perhaps Bush had a loophole to slide through. But here's another question: who bought his Harken securities? Supposedly, an institutional investor that has not been identified. The White House maintains it is in no position to release the minutes of Harken board meetings from this period, but it has not explained what prevents Bush from publicly requesting that Harken disclose these records or that the institution that purchased his stock identify itself.

At the end of two weeks of Harken-ish news (and don't forget Vice President Dick Cheney's troubles, as Halliburton, the company he once chaired, faces investigation for accounting irregularities), conservative journalist William Kristol was left saying (hoping?) it was unlikely Bush would suffer political repercussions, for the recent details did not prove the Harken deal was illegal. (Remember when conservatives scoffed at an it-wasn't-illegal standard for the president?)

Details, of course, matter. But the story is already complete enough to justify a judgment, for the issue isn't merely the legality of Bush's Harken stock sale. It's Bush's record as a beneficiary of insider capitalism. Whether he sold his Harken stock due to insider knowledge or not, he was only in a position to conduct this transaction because Harken had rescued his sinking oil business. In 1986, Bush's own oil firm, Spectrum 7, was collapsing. Before it went belly-up, Harken purchased Spectrum for $2.25 million worth of Harken stock and made Bush a Harken director and consultant. That is, Harken saved Bush from ruin.

Why? It wasn't Bush's record as an oil man. He had run two oil companies into the ground. Could it have been Bush's insider credentials as the son of a vice president?

At the time, Harken was owned by global billionaire George Soros, the Harvard Management Corporation, and others. A few weeks ago, I was at the opening of the new Washington offices of the Open Society Institute, a nonprofit policy and advocacy organization founded by Soros. OSI reflects the left-of-center beliefs of Soros. In the United States and overseas, it promotes campaign finance reform, government openness, drug policy reform, abolition of the death penalty and many other issues. At the party, practically the entire liberal policy community of the capital was present. Well-wishers (and grant-seekers?) were eagerly congratulating Soros. While chatting with one of his employees, I said to her, "One day, you should ask Soros what he knew about the Harken deal and why his company took on Bush." She blanched and mumbled that she could never raise that with Soros.

Later, when I saw the billionaire almost alone, I sidled up to him. "Nice offices," I said. "But can I ask you about some ancient history?" Sure, he said, with a good-natured smile. What was the deal with Harken buying up Spectrum 7? I inquired. Did Soros know Bush back then?

"I didn't know him," Soros replied. "He was supposed to bring in the Gulf connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political influence. That was it. He was not much of a businessman."

Then my time with the billionaire was up. If Soros--who disagrees with most Bush policies--is telling the truth, it means Bush only survived in the corporate jungle because of his surname and connections. Yes, that hardly comes as a surprise. But it does render Bush a purebred embodiment of the central issue of the current business scandals: those on the inside play by a different set of rules than the rest of Americans (including workers and small investors). The market works for Bush--as well as for Martha Stewart and the execs of WorldCom and Enron--in ways others can only imagine, or read about, once in a great while, in an indictment.

Had it not been for Soros and his Harken partners, what might have become of George the Younger? Because a liberal billionaire and his corporate allies sought political juice in 1986--for they knew the business world is no meritocracy--Bush's corporate career was artificially inflated. Consequently, he was able to enter politics, citing his business experience, and land in a position where he could implement policies that make Soros gag. (O. Henry would enjoy this turnabout.)

Even if Bush did not trade on inside information, he fully exploited insider capitalism. If it takes a crony to bust up crony capitalism, the nation has the right man for the job.


(Login IGORM)

"The Greatest Robbery in History"

August 5 2002, 9:27 AM 

No. 82 8-17-98
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Published by the The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

"The Greatest Robbery in History"

by Michael A. Hoffman II

Swiss bankers capitulated last week to Zionist blackmail, to the tune of $1.25 billion for "reparations" to "Holocaust Survivors," in what is another spectacular transfer of wealth brought on almost exclusively by media hysteria and the threat of economic boycotts by the state governments of New York, Florida and California.

With the restraint and understatement characteristic of his constituency, World Jewish Congress Director Elan Steinberg said that Switzerland had been guilty of "...the greatest robbery in history."

That’s quite an epithet. We know what the managed media would say if someone were to ascribe such a claim not to Swiss bankers, but to Jewish ones; it would be "vicious scapegoating" and "anti-Semitism."

While the newspapers and talking heads wagged their fingers at the besieged Swiss, robbery on a vast scale was being perpetrated in Russia.

68 year old Hungarian-Jewish billionaire George Soros decided a few days ago that the Russian ruble should be devalued and a "currency board" established in Moscow for the control of the economy, to be staffed by Soros’ cronies.

Soros officially controls two of Russia’s most powerful enterprises, the $2 billion Quantum fund and the Svyazinvest media monopoly. Off the record, with his Israeli-Mafia partners, he secretly owns controlling interests in several other Russian operations.

Soros also spreads philo-Zionist ideology and rootless consumerism in Russia and Eastern Europe through his so-called, "Open Society" foundation, a consortium of propaganda outlets intended to discredit the traditional "blood and soil" nationalism of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian philosophers and writers of the stature of Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When Soros’ demand for devaluation was announced Aug. 13, Russia’s stock market plunged 15%.

Today, Aug. 17, as if on cue, Russia’s Central Bank bowed to Soros and allowed the value of the ruble to fall more than 50 percent -- from about 6.0 to the dollar to 9.5 to the dollar.

What this will mean for the Russian people, especially elderly pensioners and the ranks of the working poor, is dreadful hardship. The already severely diminished buying power of the Russian people will be virtually cut in half, in a nation that economically has been a basket-case throughout the '90s, its foreign debt rated by Standard & Poor’s as worse than "junk."

But for the dollar-flush Soros, the currency devaluation he demanded and got will enable his frontmen to gobble up more Russian enterprises and place them under Zionist control. This effectively puts a chunk of the International Monetary Fund’s July loan of $22.6 billion in Soros’ pocket.

Soros pulled similar maneuvers against Malaysia and Thailand, where he staged a run on the ringgit and caused the collapse of the Thai baht. In 1992 he made a billion dollars in one day when he forced the devaluation of the British pound and earned the sobriquet, "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England." Now he’s breaking the back of the Russian people.

In the 1930s, Lazar M. Kaganovich, the most powerful Communist in Russia after Stalin, ordered the demolition of one of the oldest and most venerable Orthodox Christian churches in Moscow, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

After the magnificent, centuries-old edifice was razed, Kaganovich exulted in the midst of the ruins and declared, "Mother Russia is cast down!"

In 1998 George Soros has repeated this Khazar refrain, at least symbolically, as the Russian people themselves are now cast down into a penury that he’s engineered. Soros will laugh all the way to the bank as he loots the Russian economy in a repeat of the wrecking process he initiated in Asia.

Some would call the unconscionable manipulations of this speculator one of the "great robberies in history."

But to utter that truth would be "anti" something or other. The corporate media would screech that it constitutes "prejudice, bigotry and scapegoating."

Therefore, let all followers of goodthink perish the thought and banish the truth.

Let us instead righteously scapegoat those "evil Swiss" and their "wicked swindle" of "old, poor Jews" in the course of "the greatest robbery in history."

What of old, poor Russians? It would seem that their fate is to be forever "cast down" without remorse or reparation.

[Hoffman is a former reporter for the N.Y. bureau of the Associated Press]


(Login IGORM)

Soros banking trial begins in France

November 7 2002, 1:03 PM 

Soros banking trial begins in France
By Elizabeth Bryant
United Press International
From the International Desk
Published 11/7/2002 11:20 AM

PARIS, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- A French court began Thursday, trying billionaire George Soros and three other prominent business figures on charges of insider trading linked to a banking scandal that roiled France more than a decade ago.

All four deny charges of having privileged information regarding a complex and murky takeover attempt in 1988 of the powerful French banking chain Societe General SA.

The four bought several million dollars worth of Societe General stocks. The sale coincided with an increase of the shares' values, over speculation of an imminent takeover bid.

But the four defendants, who include two powerful banking executives and a former French ministry official, say there weren't given any confidential information before buying.

News of the irregularities rocked the country's political and business establishments. At the time, the government of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand had been trying to "break the hard core" of businesses -- like Societe General -- that had been privatized under former conservative Prime Minister Jacques Chirac.

Almost a dozen people have been questioned about the 1988 scandal, but charges against five were dismissed and two other suspects were pardoned.

Ultimately, charges were pursued only against Soros, former Societe General executive Jean-Pierre Peyraud, French-Lebanese businessman Samir Traboulsi, and former government official Jean-Charles Naouri.

A verdict is expected Nov. 20. If found guilty, the four could be sentenced to four years in prison and fined $2.5 million.



(Login IGORM)

Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland

December 1 2002, 9:09 AM 

Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland

With the change of Poland from a communist dictatorship to a free market system, much credit has been given to Leszek Balcerowicz, who supposedly is the father of the “miraculous” economic reform. However according to the special report published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, D.C., the real brains behind the reforms that have impoverished and enslaved Poles for generations is a Hungarian Jew, mega speculator George Soros, who also carries American passport.

Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930 and educated in England, George Soros and his Curacao based Quantum Fund have quickly become a silent partner of Rothschild’s, Reichman’s, US expelled Marc Rich, Israeli arms merchant Saul Isenberg and many other wealthy and influential Jews, such as Henry Kissinger. The main objectives of their activities are speculative investments to take advantage of political and economic weaknesses of various countries.

Soros' Quantum Fund makes money by anticipating economic shifts around the world. In 1992 Soros thought the British pound would lose value because of political and economic pressures. He borrowed billions of pounds and converted them to German marks. When the pound collapsed Sept. 16, Soros repaid the pounds at the lower rate and pocketed the difference. His profit: $1 billion.

To understand how George Soros is different from other financial speculators, just ponder this: Enron's whiz kids, once considered the acme of high-finance innovation, named one of their infamous off-balance sheet partnerships "Chewco" -- after the "Star Wars" character Chewbacca. Soros chose to name his primary vehicle for earning billions of dollars "the Quantum Fund."

He was alluding, says his biographer, Michael Kaufman, to Werner Heisenberg's theory of "indeterminacy": the impossibility of knowing simultaneously both the position and velocity of any atomic particle. As applied to markets, the implication was that you can't invest in something (especially on a Soros-ian scale) without affecting its prospects, for good or ill.

"Soros's choice," writes Kaufman, "was both an ironic wink and a gesture of homage to notions of fallibility, reflexivity, and his own convention of incomplete determinism."

OK, so Soros is like, really smart, and those Enron guys, despite the Harvard MBAs, now look kind of dumb. But the two did have some things in common.

Soros is credited with being the chief developer of the hedge fund -- a strategy for investing that, at its simplest, maximizes an investor's ability to pick winners (and losers) and yet at the same time insures against larger market trends that could be completely unpredictable. So, for example, at the same time you are buying one company's stock because you think its stock price will rise, you are selling another's short, because you think it will fall. By balancing your long and short positions, if something unexpected happens, like a terrorist attack, that drives all stock prices up, or down, across the board, you are insured against losing your shirt. Some of your bets will win, no matter what. And if nothing unexpected happens, all of your bets might win.

As Enron mutated away from being a natural gas trader into a financial derivatives player, it advanced the concept of hedging beyond the sublime and the ridiculous straight to the land of pure idiocy. Enron, the biggest bankruptcy of all time, even bet on bankruptcy protection! In this, Enron's derivatives traders were descendants of Soros; as financial speculators intent on beating the system by being really, really smart, they attempted to hedge against every possible eventuality.

Soros and the latter-stage Enron both strove to make money chiefly by manipulating money. The difference is that Soros rarely lost a bet, while Enron's executives, blinded by greed and hubris, took themselves to the cleaners.

Are financial speculators parasites profiting off the people and companies who do the real work, or do they in any way produce value themselves? Michael Kaufman's intriguing biography of Soros never fully addresses this question -- one of the few flaws in an otherwise eminently readable book on the enigmatically fascinating Soros. And Soros himself neatly sidesteps the conundrum, by virtue of what he has done with his winnings.

Soros, a "revolutionary plutocrat," would-be philosopher king and one-man Marshall Plan, set out to change the world -- to use his billions to fund the spread of "open societies." He became a one-man conduit of funds from West to East, from affluent to non-affluent.

Which raises another question that Kaufman's bio never delves into too deeply. When an ordinary individual donates money to charity, it's easy to respect that as a personal choice. But when the individual involved can spend billions -- when he's the kind of person who can casually say, "Tell me about the health of the king of Thailand ... I happen to own 5 percent of the Thai stock market this week" -- then you start to wonder, is this really kosher? Who is this man accountable to?

One of Soros' nicknames is "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," in reference to a famous multibillion dollar bet his fund made that John Major's Conservative government would not be able to prop up the value of the British pound. The phrase is usually used admiringly -- what a paragon of financial expertise this Soros guy is!

But what if, say, Osama bin Laden was doing the betting? What if such manipulation was pursued on behalf of "the closed society" as opposed to the open?

Liberals love to shower Soros with respect, ignoring his Wall Street background, because his motives are so obviously honorable, and the money he is spending so clearly is going to "good" causes. But his life raises some troubling questions about the autonomy of capital in the era of globalization. Make enough money, and you don't have to obey anyone's rules.

As one might expect from the first "authorized" biography of Soros, "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire" is flattering to its subject. But it's never fawning, and the psychological portrait it draws is convincing and illuminating.

Soros' life, no matter how you slice it, has been extraordinary. The first several chapters of the biography -- which deal with the teenage Soros' efforts to avoid the depredations of first the Nazis and then the Soviets in his native Hungary -- read like a thriller. As Kaufman notes, this background makes it easy to understand how Soros was able to cope with the pressures involved with high-stakes investing: When your formative experiences include watching friends and colleagues get rounded up and shipped off to Auschwitz in the waning days of World War II, it's likely that little else will ever be able to frighten you.

Soros' early experiences with fascism and totalitarianism also illuminate his motives, later on, in helping Eastern European and Soviet dissidents. Kaufman excels at dissecting and explaining Soros' psychological makeup. As just one data point -- can you imagine a Rockefeller or Carnegie or Gates frankly talking about insights gained from psychoanalysis, if they ever even admitted to seeing a therapist at all?

Kaufman gets Soros to open up -- about his analysis, about his family, about his dreams. A picture emerges of a man who was not only intensely self-critical but also sought out criticism from others. And his obsession with being an actual philosopher, along with his grandiose visions of single-handedly changing the world, make him come off as more than slightly neurotic.

Few neurotics, of course, are able to dispense about a half a billion dollars a year to whomever they choose. Is that really a good thing?

During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, accused Soros of destabilizing his country through currency speculation. According to Kaufman, Soros was not involved in currency trading in Malaysia at the time, but his response, at a conference held in Hong Kong that year, is instructive.

"Dr. Mahathir's suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration. Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country."

Never mind that the stringent restrictions on currency flow that Malaysia did impose are now widely considered to have worked spectacularly well. What's important isn't whether Soros was wrong or right, but the arrogance implicit in Soros' categorization of Mahathir as a "menace."

If you or I were to think that Mahathir is a neo-authoritarian despot who is fundamentally anti-democratic, that's one thing. But Soros can get peeved at a leader and decide to bankroll a popular movement aimed at destabilizing a government. He's done it before! If I were a Malaysian citizen aware of what Soros had done in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, I'd be a little worried when he started calling my leader bad names. Who could stop him? Who could censure him?

No one.

Soros has stated that he doesn't do philanthropy in countries where he is involved as a trader, and vice versa. He has also noted that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money-management business "amoral." But is it really possible to make such distinctions? If the consequences of a billion-dollar bet on a currency change "anomaly" destabilizes a given country's economy, boosting unemployment and inflation, does that balance out the good karma that accrues from connecting all of Russia's universities to the Internet?

We should all be grateful that deep down, George Soros appears to be a good guy, at least as judged according to liberal Western values. His commitment to "openness" is sincere; his dedication to improving people's lives is unquestionable. He is the ultimate meddling, bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, and for that, let's give him a cheer.

But at the same time, a guy like George Soros can't be voted out of office if you disagree with him. And when his billions of dollars can affect public policy, not just in his own country but in any country of his choosing, there is good reason to be a little bit nervous. Maybe Prime Minister Mahathir is indeed a menace to his own country. But on a bad day, a grumpy George Soros could be a menace to any country.

In order to gain valuable inside knowledge of the speculative possibilities, George Soros has set up a huge organization of inter-related “open society” institutes staffed mainly by Jews. Although his “institutes” have been expelled from China, Russia, Indonesia and the Czech Republic, they exist in Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the USA. There is no doubt that this organization allows for great economic intelligence gathering possibilities to detect weaknesses subject to financial speculation. But to go one step further, George Soros has also been known to manipulate the outcome of the political process by funding his own candidates in presidential elections, as recently documented in the Ukraine and Peru. In today’s information age, it is much more profitable for speculators to have their own people (insiders) in the government they are planning to raid. His favorite agenda is to convince the government of a particular country that neo-liberal reform is the best way out of financial crisis, so he can take advantage and speculate with their currency and privatization. Soros justifies his methods with a statement that what he is doing may not be moral but it is not against the law.

According to Lyndon LaRouche, Soros has gained a new position in the course of the 1997-98 period. The big thing that is occurring in Southeast Asia and in East Asia, is that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, has become a hero of economics. He defied Al Gore, he defied Madeleine Albright--personally, nose-to-nose in Asia--on the issue of George Soros. And Madeleine Albright and Al Gore came to the enraged defense of George Soros.

In the period between October 1998 and the Brazil crisis of February 1999, George Soros was used as a key adviser on how to generate an avalanche of fraudulent money, which was used in particular to try to deal with the Brazil debt crisis. So, George Soros has gone from being a figure of what he was earlier, to using his experience and connections for a somewhat different operation. He's a key part of what is actually being generated, a global hyperinflation like that of Weimar 1923.

The thing that must always be remembered is that the United States, as a national economy, is presently hopelessly bankrupt. For example, the United States, at the current rate, has a national current account deficit rate of approximately a half-trillion dollars a year. Well, that's the mark of a bankrupt business. It has no hope of ever earning the income to pay that deficit. We don't know how much money is being put in to try to keep the United States from collapsing. Official figures from central bankers and others show at least $1 trillion a year. LaRouche estimates is that, in addition to that, there is an additional trillion dollars a year or more, which is now going into over-the-counter derivatives.

In other words, the United States, as an economy, is presently like a hopelessly bankrupt firm, which is borrowing ever vaster amounts of credit by the day, to keep from closing the door. By every objective standard, the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are the most bankrupt nation in the world. And, it's a time bomb that can set off the biggest financial collapse in all history, a collapse that will sink the entire world economy.

So, states LaRouche, the significance of Soros, is that these fellows are trying to keep alive, keep the bankruptcy from the door, long enough to establish their kind of world government, or one-world government, system.

As if this was not enough, George Soros has also been actively promoting the free use of narcotics, which leads to greater liberalization of the particular countries and greater possibilities of speculative gains.

According to the EIR Report, Soros has been personally responsible for introducing “shock therapy” economic chaos into the emerging economies of Eastern Europe since 1989. He has foisted on fragile new governments in the East, the most draconian economic madness, policies that have allowed Soros and his financial friends to loot the resources of large parts of Eastern Europe at less than dirt-cheap prices.

In Poland, in late 1989, Soros personally organized a secret meeting between the communist government of Mieczyslaw Rakowski (also Stanislaw Gomulka and Wojciech Jaruzelski), and the leaders of the then-illegal opposition, the Solidarnosc trade-union umbrella organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting between the communist regime and the Solidarnosc, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let the opposition Solidarnosc take over government so as to gain the confidence of the population.

Then, said Soros, the state must act deliberately to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises using astronomical interest rates, withholding needed state credits, thus burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once that was done, said Soros, he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come to Poland as prospective buyers of privatized state enterprises. A good example of this Soros privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility, Huta Warszawa. According to steel experts the complex, a modern one, would cost $3-4 billion for a Western company to build new. The Polish government agreed to assume the “debts” of Huta Warszawa, and sell the debt-free, steel making complex to Milan Company, Lucehini, for a price of $30 million!

To further the Soros plan, Soros personally recruited his friend (Belorussian Jew with American passport), 35-year old Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs, whose only prior claim to experience was that of advising the Bolivian government on the advantages of the disastrous neo-liberal reform. Next, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, staffed by Polish Jews related to the Mazowiecki government. The Stefan Batory Foundation became the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90. Before his recent move on Peru to advise Soros-sponsored President Alejandro Toledo and his Belgian-Jewish-Polish wife Eliane Karp, Sachs visited Poland over 40 times. In 1996, although officially never employed by the Polish government (as argued by Janine Wedel) , Sachs neverless was decorated with the Order of White Eagle by post-communist President Alexander Kwasniewski.

Soros boasted that he had “established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief advisor, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by Gen. Jaruzelski, the Head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He also worked closely with the “eminence grise” of Polish “shock therapy”, Prof. Trzeciakowski , a behind-the-scene adviser to Finance and Economics Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with the man who would first impose Sach’s “shock” therapy on Poland: Balcerowicz himself. When Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland, Soros said: “largely because of Western (Washington) pressure Walesa retained Balcerowicz as Minister”. Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Since, during early “shock therapy”, Balcerowicz maintained a fixed rate of dollar exchange with interest rates in Polish zloty reaching 80% a year, for many years Poland was a dream country for currency speculators like George Soros. Unfortunately, during those years there was no tax on the interest earned in Polish banks and therefore there are no records as to how much money was siphoned out of the country. Tax on the interest earned was applied in the year 2001 and only since then has interest income been recorded. Although there are no verifiable records, I estimate Poland lost up to $30 billion dollars due to speculation with its currency exchange. Prof. Kazimierz Poznanski, of the University of Washington, documents that Poland has lost over $80 billion dollars through manipulation of currency exchange and dishonest privatization.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his “shock therapy” would cause huge unemployement (approx. 20% in 2002), closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government. Through his Batory Foundation, Soros also co-opted key media opinion-makers such as Adam Michnik (Gazeta Wyborcza), and with cooperation from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable only to Soros’s “shock therapy” and hostile to all critics – a censorship which rivaled that of the communists, according to some Polish reports.

Not a shabby achievement for a Hungarian Jew, who survived the “holocaust” and started with nothing else but a name. His personal net worth is estimated at 15 billion dollars. “Time” magazine has characterized George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood”, who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. “Time” claimed that Soros made huge financial gains by speculating against Western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society”. “Time’s” statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich Western countries, all right – then he uses his profits to create the basis to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy”. His goal is to loot wherever he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of the “hit-and-run capitalism” and Poland with cooperation from the postcommunist rulers, has been one of his easy prey. However, officially, there are no records that George Soros himself or his Quantum Fund has taken out a single dollar out of Poland. The real looting was done by others, who were fully protected by the privacy laws of the post-communist banking system.

What Soros means by “open”, is to open up, for him and his financial predator friends, the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries, so they can loot their resources and assets. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs and their economic “shock therapy” into emerging economies, Soros has laid the foundation for buying invaluable assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices, for himself and his selected rich friends, who share a dream forming world government one day.

It must be stated that George Soros would never be able to create crisis in Poland without the full cooperation of the perpetual oligarchy of the Polish-Jewish and meddling of the American-Jewish politicians, but their treason is a subject for discussion some other time.

Stanislaw Tyminski


(Login IGORM)

George Soros and the Rothschilds Connection

December 1 2002, 9:11 AM 

George Soros and the Rothschilds Connection
By Jan Von Helsing ("Secret Societies and their Power in the 20th Century")
Special Note : The author of this book is German. He claims he has several jewish friends and is
not racist or prejudice, but often cites the Talmud as a guide book for certain Jews and discusses a
Jewish Conspiracy that involves elements of Zionism and other conspiracy issues as well. I do not
agree wholeheartedly with the author's entire beliefs, however alot of the research on a variety of
other topics is VERY GOOD. We are seeking truth here and not Hatred or prejudice, as a matter of
FACT, I was raised Jewish myself. For my views on the Jewish Conspiracy, you will have to go Here
to find out, this is not the forum.

The now 64 year old Hungarian with a U.S. passport is the superstar amidst the great speculators.
When the last "Forbes" list of the best paid managers and financiers was published, Soros was in the
lead by a huge margin. In the last year he earned 550 million US$, twenty times as much as the
Disney Boss. When Soros opens the hunt, the international money markets get moving and the
reserve banks start worrying. In Sept. 1993 he succeeded over the Bank of England. He was
certain the Bank would have to take the pound that came under pressure out of the European
exchange mechanism and devalue it. He gambled 10 Billion US$ --with success. He made 1 Billion
US$, which the British taxpayers now have to come up with. He himself likes to be openly known
as the man who wants to influence the big money markets of the world. This is a very unusual stance
for an investor to take, who should rather be interested in using situations unobservantly that the
competitors have not yet discovered. In March 1993, Soros' activities became known when he
predicted a rise in the price of gold. It is assumed --since this started a buying spree in precious
metals --that this drove the price up 20% over the highest price since the Gulf War. In the beginning
of June 1993, he wrote an open letter to the business editor of the London Times, Anatole
Kaletsky, announcing that he intented to urge the money markets to sell large amounts of German
government bonds in favor of French stocks. Which means: Down with the German mark and
attack on the Bundesbank!
In several newspapers across the world Soros is praised as a kind of "Robin Hood of the Computer Age", since by speculation he takes from the rich nations in grand style to hand out to
Eastern Europe and Russia via several Soros Foundations, to prepare the way for "Democracy" in
those "poor" countries that had been bled dry by communism.
Who then is Soros? The official story says that he was born in 1930 to Jewish parents and as a
teenager had been chased from Budapest by the Nazis. He enrolled at the "London School of
Economics" and in the mid-50's came to the U.S. There he was magically drawn to Wall Street, but
his career until 1969 was unspectacular. Then with a partner he took over an investment fund. He
sold stocks he didn't own as futures, hoping that their price would fall nearer the qualifying date and
that he could aquire them at a price lower than his selling price.
From this fund the "Quantum Group" evolved, a family of investment funds operating from the
Dutch West Indies. Quantum is one of the most impressive "investment machines" in the world. In
8 of the last 24 years it made an "official" profit of over 50%, in 2 of those years even over 100%.
In the meantime Soros handed business over to a group of managers and limits himself to designing
the "great campaigns". He put down his princples in the book, "The Alchemy of Finance", where he
says what "financial speculators think more important than real economic facts".
But this is but the picture the media -- and we know who owns them --paint of him. Who is he in
William Engdahl knows this to say about him:
"Soros speculates on the world's financial markets via his secret off-shore company, "Quantum
Fund NV", a private "investment fund" that handles a portfolio of 4 to 7 Billion US$ for several
"clients". The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherland Antilles in the Caribbean.
In order to evade control of his financial activities by the U.S. administration not a single U.S. citizen sits on the board of Quantum. It's directors are a curious mixture of Swiss and Italian financiers...
Soros has been identified as a front man of the Anglo-French Rothschild banking group.
Understandably neither he nor the Rothschilds want this important fact to be public, so the tight links to his friends in the London "City", in the British foreign ministry, in the state of Israel and to his mighty friends in the American establishment would stay concealed."
Among the members of the board of the Quantum Fund is one Richard Katz. He is, at the same
time, head of the "Rothschild Italia S.p.A." in Milan and is also on the board of the commercial bank
"N.M. Rothschild and Sons" in London. Another member of the board is Nils O. Taube. He is a
partner in the London investment group "St. James Place Capital" which counts Lord Rothschild
among it's main partners. A frequent partner of Soros in several of his speculations --especially in
the driving up of the gold quotation-- is Sir James Goldsmith, a relative of the Rothschilds dynasty.
On the board of Quantum we also find some heads of some highly "discreet" Swiss private banks
(who help the syndicates of organized crime--weapons and drugs--to launder their money). Then
there is Edgar D. de Picciotto, head of the Geneva private bank "CBITDB Union Bancaire Privee",
a main player on the gold and investment markets, Isidoro Albertini, head of the Milan stockbroking
company "Albertini and Co.", Beat Notz of the private bank "Banque Worms" at Geneva, Alberto
Foglia, head of the Banca del Ceresio" at Lugano. In the course of the recent political corruption
scandals in Italy it was found that several Italian politicians kept their money at the "Banca del
Ceresio". Apparently Soros had more than just insider knowledge about the weal points in Italian
politics when he attacked the lira in Sept. 1994.
William Engdahl explains : "Soros' connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles of
the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or accidental banking connection. The extraordinary success
Soros has on the high-risk financial markets cannot simply be explained with "gambler's luck".
Soros has access to the "insider track" of the world's most imporatnt information channels, both
government and private.
Ever since the Second World War the Rothschild family tried to disseminate an aura of
insignificance about themselves. But behind this one of the mightiest and most obscure financial
groups of the world. The Rothschilds spend alot of money to cultivate the picture of a wealthy
aristocratic family leading a quiet life where one loves French wines and another engages in
charitable trusts.
To experts on the "City" N.M. Rothschilds and Sons is most influencial in the faction of the
British secret service establishment closely linked with the neo-liberal Thatcher wing of the Tory
party. In the 80's N.M. Rothschild & Sons made several Billion US$ from the privatization of
British state-owned industries they conducted for Mrs. Thatcher. The Rothschild bank is also at the
center of world gold trade: In this bank the gold price is fixed twice a day by the five most
influencial gold trading banks.
But N.M. Rothschild & Sons is also entangled in some very dirty secret service operations
dealing with "drugs vs. arms". Because of it's good relations to the highest places in the British secret
service the Rothschilds succeeded in preventing their complicity in one of the worst illegal secret
service networks, the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) was never mentioned.
In reality the Rothschilds bank belonged to the inner circle of these international money laundering
banks of the CIA and M16 that financed in the 70's and 80's CIA projects like the "Contras" in
William Engdahl : "Was stecht hinter den Wahrungskriegen des George Soros? (What Is Behind
the Currency Wars of George Soros?), EIRNA-Studie "Derivate -Die finanzielle
Wasserstoffbombe der 90er Jahre" (Derivatives --The Financial Hydrogen Bomb of the 90's).
The influencial Chairman of the Banking Commission in the U.S. House of Representatives, Henry Gonzales, chided the Bush and Reagen administrations for refusing to prosecute the BCCI. In
addition the Dept. of Justice repeadedly declined to co-operate in the Congressional investigations
into the BCCI scandal and the closely linked scandal of the "Banco Nazional del Lavoro" (BNL).
This bank had made billions of dollars from loans that Bush had granted the Iraqi government shortly
before the Gulf War. Gonzales had said that the Bush administration had had a Department of Justice
which he thought "the most corrupt, most unbelievably corrupt Department of justice that I have ever
experienced during my 32 years in Congress".
After the BCCI had been openly accused in the media for transgression of several laws, the New
York prosecuting attorney Henry Morganthau announced official charges against the BCCI.
Morganthau accused the BCCI of the "biggest banking fraud of the financial world. The BCCI
during it's 19 year history operated as a corrupt criminal organization."
One of the directors of the BCCI, the Saudi-Arabian Shiekh Kamal Adham, had been the head of
the Saudi secret service during the time Bush headed the CIA.
Not a single Western newspaper has so far uncovered the fact that the Rothschilds group linked
with George Soros was at the hub of the vast illegal network of the BCCI. The key person in these activities was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the Swiss branch of the BCCI (Banque
de Commerce et de Placement SA), head of the Zurich Rothschild bank AG and member of the
board of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London. He was also on the board of the Swiss branch of the
Italian BNL and was vice-chairman of the "N.Y. Intermaritime Bank" in Geneva. A friendly secret
service man who had worked on the "Soros" case disclosed that in Sept. 1993 Soros had amassed
along with a group of "silent partners", a firtune in excess of 10 Billion dollars to use as a lever to
unhinge the European currencies. Among the partners apparently were the little known metal and
oil dealer Marc Rich and the Israeli arms dealer Shaul Eisenberg. For decades Eisenberg has been
working for the Israeli secret service and has important arms deals in all of Asia and in the Near East.
A third partner of Soros is Rafi Eytan who before was the Mossad connection to the British secret
service in London.
Basically George Soros is another tool for economic and political warfare in the hands of the
Rothschilds. He is among those circles who three years ago started a malicious "Fourth Reich"
campaign against the re-united Germany: Soros is very anti-German. In his 1991 autobiography
"Underwriting Democracy" Soros warned of the danger that a reunited Germany could disturb the
(power) balance in Europe...It is easy to see how the situation that existed between the wars could
come up again. A reunited Germany becomes the strongest economic power and developes Eastern
Europe as it's habitat.... a terrible "witches brew".
His US contacts put Soros very close to the financial and secret service circles around George
Bush. His most important deposit bank and main lender during his attack on the European monetary
system in Sept. 1993 was CITICORP, America's largest bank. Soros called upon the international
investors to unhinge the Deutsche Mark. When in late 1989 a reunification became probable, a high
ranking Citicorp manager who before had been advisor in the Dukakis campaign said: "German unity will be catastrophic for our interests. We have to take action to insure a decline of the Deutsche
Mark by about 30% so that Germany will not be able to built up Eastern Germany to become the
economic factor within a new Europe."
According to his associates Soros has "an incredible ego". He descibed how during the war in
occupied Hungary he could not have survived as a Jew, so he had taken on a second identity. What
he did not say, however, was that he let a man shield him from persecution who did wealthy Jews out
of their possessions, and that Soros lent him a hand. This is how he "survived" the war, leaving
Budapest only two years after it had ended. Although he himself and the Jewish owned media are
quick in attacking all his opponents, especially in Eastern Europe, as anti-semitic, his Jewishness is
based on parts of the Talmud rather than on his links with Jewish religion or the Jewish people.
Outwardly Soros supports a whole spate social activities, like "peace concerts" with Joan Baez,
stipends in Oxford for young Eastern Europeans etc...
But reality presents a different picture. Soros is personally responsible for the chaos and "shock
therapy" caused in Eastern Europe after 1989. He foisted ludicrous draconian measures upon the
weak governments there, which enabled him to buy up resources in wide parts of Eastern Europe at
rock-bottom prices.
Take Poland as an example :
At the end of 1989 Soros organized a secret meeting between the communist regime of Rakowsky
with the leaders of the then illegal opposition union organization Solidarnosc. The plan he presented to
both sides is as follows :
*The communists should let the opposition Solidarnosc take over the government to win the
confidence of the people.
*Then the state should deliberatly drive it's own industries and agricultural business to ruin by
applying astronomical interest rates, by withholding the necessary state loans and by lumbering the
companies with debts they could never repay.
*Then Soros would get his rich international business friends to come to Poland and buy up the now
privatized state companies.
The most recent example is the huge steel company "Huta Warsawa", which today, so steel
experts say, would cost about 3 to 4 Billion US$ to build if it was built by Western companies. A few
months ago the Polish government agreed to take over the "debts" of Huta Warsawa and to sell the
company now free of debts for 30 Million US$ to the Milan company Lucchini.
To instigate his plan Soros used a young friend, the Polish-Jewish economic advisor Jeffrey Sachs
who however could not begin his advisory work in Poland because so far he could only show advisory
work he did in Bolivia. So Soros set up another one of his many foundations, the "Stafen Batory
Foundation", which then in turn was the official client for the advisory wotk of Sachs in Poland
In Soros' own words he has worked or still works with the main advisor of Lech Walesa,
Bronislaw Geremek, with General Jaruzelski, Professor Trzeciakowsky, a secret advisor to the new
Polish minister for finanve and economy Leszec Balcerowicz, and with the latter himself. Soros
admits that he had known that his economic "shock therapy" in Poland would lead to severe
unemployment, to the closing of factories and to social tensions. That is why he insisted that
Solidarnosc take over the government. Through his foundation he could approach the most important
opinion makers in the media, like Adam Michnik, and his collaboration with the US embassy in
Warsaw enabled him to censor the media which proceeded one-sidedly to support his "shock therapy"
and opposed any criticism.
Russia and the CIS states :
Soros led a delegation to Russia, where he had been collaborating with Raissa Gorbacheva since the
80's, to set up a further Soros foundation, ":The Cultural Initiative Foundation". This is a further
vehicle for him and his Western cronies to enter the highest political echelons tax-free and proceed to
"buy" the most important political and economic personalities of the country.
After a failed attempt with Gorbechev 1988-1991 he changed over to the circles around Yeltsin.
And again it was Soros who introduced his "shock therapy" aided and abeted by his friend Jeffery
From Jan. 2, 1992 onwards Sachs "shock therapy" brought an unprecedented chaos and a
forseeable hyper-inflation to Russia which was followed by the best scientific research institutes
fleeing to the West. Under the Soros plan, Igor Gajdar and the Yeltsin government shorted subsidies
to industry and agriculture drastically, despite all of economy being a state-economy. The goal
announced was a deficit-free budget within 3 months. There were no more loans for industry, the
companies accrued astronomical debts and the rouble inflation went out of control. Soros and his
friends immediately profited from the situation. Marc Rich, the world's largest aluminum dealer,
started to buy up alot of Russian aluminum at incredibly low prices with which in 1993 he proceeded
to flood the market in the industrialized countries and thus caused the price of aluminum to plummet
by 30%. This is just one example of the Soros exploitation.
Hungary :
When Istvan Csurka, parlamentarian of the national-socialist opposition, tried to protest the
destruction of the Hungarian economy by the strategies of Soros and his friends, he was branded
an "anti-semite" and in June was excluded from the governing Democratic Forum.
Yugoslavia :
At the beginning of 1990 Soros --in cooperation with the IMF--in what was then still Yugoslavia
put down the gauntlet for what then escalated into a war. Soros is also a friend of the then secretary
of state Lawrence Eagleburger, the former ambassador to Belgrade and patron of Slobodan
Milosevic. Eagleburger was formerly chairman of "Kissinger Associates" on whose board Lord
Carrington (Committee of 300) member also sits. The latter's mediations have directly fueled the
Serbian aggression against the Croats and the Bosnians. Today Soros has foundations in Bosnia,
Croatia, Slovenia, and a "Yugoslav Soros Foundation" in Belgrade/Serbia. In Croatia he uses funds
from his foundation to hire influencial journalists or to discredit opponents of his "shock therapy" as
anti-semites or neo-nazis. (From the EIRNA study "Derivatives")



(Login IGORM)

Re: George Soros and the Rothschilds Connection

April 8 2003, 9:27 PM 



(Login IGORM)


August 8 2003, 8:48 PM 



< Previous Page 1 2 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on Political RelationsCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement