Scott Howard is the author of books The Open Society Playbook and Transgender Industrial Complex. He thouroughly researched the subversive nature and actions of non-governmental organisations which are connected with various institutions and even state departments, working together towards globalist goals. The main focus of his research is, among others, the shady figure George Soros, as well as the World Economic Forum. He also focuses on the work of Open Society Foundations in ex-Yugoslavian countries, including Slovenia.
A frequent visitor to Slovenia, Howard has fallen in love with the country and is concerned with its fate at the hands of a corrupt internationalist order that wants to blend all of humanity together into one easily-controlled nondescript blob. Slovenia, like all countries, has its own unique culture, that special something that cannot be replaced or replicated. It would be a tragedy for any of the unique cultures of the world to be extinguished, and as such he is a staunch opponent of the Open Society project. After a short stint as a one-time professional basketball player in Greece (very briefly) and in the corporate world on the United States East Coast, Howard eventually became fed up with the insanity of urban life and returned to his home state of Nebraska to try a quieter life of homesteading. The Open Society Playbook out on Antelope Hill Publishing is his second book both with the publishing house and overall. His first book, The Transgender-Industrial Complex, can be considered a companion piece to The Open Society Playbook and diagnoses more aspects of the globalist project. The Transgender-Industrial Complex was the target of a large censorship campaign to ban the book for its truth-telling by those who could not explain away or justify their support for such a monstrous sham, and as such it was banned from Amazon and subject to attack pieces on the internet. Ironic that the so-called liberals are so committed to destroying all dissent, to wiping out diversity in the name of diversity, but here we are. Howard believes that those acting in bad faith should be exposed and remains committed to working tirelessly to do just that.
Mr Howard, Slovenian readers will be especially interested in the description of the strategy used by Soros and Open Society Foundations in recruting the NGOs, as described in your book The Open Society Rulebook, in which you explore in detail the work of George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. What is the nature of this organisation and what strategies does Soros use?
Since its inception, the Open Society Foundations have officially dispensed nearly $17 billion over tens of thousands of grants. But to what purpose? Is this charity and good works for their own sake? Of course not. Though Soros and company talk a big game about democracy and self-determination, the goal is, as with virtually everything that comes out of the mouths of the ruling class, the opposite. George Soros admits in his 1997 piece for The Atlantic entitled »The Capitalist Threat« that the function of his foundation network active in countries under communism was designed to be »subversive,« and that, »For five or six years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, I devoted practically all of my energies to the transformation of the formerly Communist world.« He hasn’t stopped, and neither was this the beginning of his endeavors.
So when did he start engaging in such subversive activities?
Soros’ »philanthropic work« began in the late 1970s by funding scholarships for black university students in South Africa during apartheid to ultimately weaponize them against whites, particularly the Boer and the system of self-preservation they had in place. In 1979, according to the Open Soceity Foundations’ website, Soros said, »[South Africa] was a closed society with all the institutions of a first world country, but they were off-limits to the majority of the population on racial grounds. Where could I find a better opportunity for opening up a closed society?« Indeed, and the sad fate of the Rainbow Nation reminds us precisely what the future holds. For Soros, »The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change…What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about.«
What is his main motivation?
The Open Society Foundations are ideologically-motivated as part of the effort to re-shape the world under the umbrella of what is sometimes called the New World Order. These efforts have been going on for a very long time, and we are now, unfortunately, starting to see them come to more advanced stages of fruition. I say unfortunately because despite the many promises of utopia, this global system of one government leaves no room for anything or anyone not fully subscribed to the vision, a vision which is, to be perfectly blunt, at odds with what is good and right. It is an inversion of morality and decency, and does not—despite its »democratic« claims—support freedom or self-determination for any group of people or any individual. All one needs to do is look at the quantum-leap in totalitarian measures of the past two to three years under the auspices of COVID to see a hint of where the people in power want to take us. Indeed, it would seem that on the whole it is globalization that is inadequate from the citizen’s perspective, but the ruling class views us with contempt, as an obstacle to be dismantled and shoved aside, or else crushed totally underfoot.
Can you give us an example of Soros interference in an Eastern Europe?
George Soros said in a 2005 NPR interview, “The Open Society Foundation has the same objectives as the [US] State Department.” Considering what we are seeing in the Ukraine at present, this claim is brought into even sharper focus. In a glowing Soros feature from The New Yorker in 1995, titled “The World According to Geroge Soros,” his influence over the political process in several Eastern European countries is framed as a positive for democracy, but in what way is the following democratic, other than that “liberal” and “democratic” have been taken to be synonymous:
Contrasting the Soros foundation in Ukraine with its counterparts in other countries, [Bohdan Krawchenko, a Ukrainian-Canadian historian who returned to Ukraine in 1991 and was recruited by Dr. Bohdan Hawrylyshyn and Soros to work for the foundation] told me, “There is no other place where the Soros foundation is so plugged in at the top…The deputy minister of finance sat with George and me in a basement almost four years ago and we tried to figure out what to do about monetary reform.” That deputy minister of finance, Olech Havrylyshyn (a nephew of Bohdan), was on the payroll of the Soros foundation—as was the deputy governor of the National Bank (George Yurchyshyn, a Ukrainian-American who had previously been a vice-president at the Bank of Boston)…Soros had placed his own agents in key positions… What Soros undoubtedly did do was enable the successful Kuchma to win for Ukraine a commitment for a crucial, I.M.F.-administered loan program of nearly four billion dollars. The loan had been strongly recommended by the United States at a Group of Seven economics meeting just before Kuchma’s victory, but it was contingent on Ukraine’s instituting economic reforms… Soros was galvanized. He got in touch with Anders Åslund, of the Carnegie Institute, who has worked on economic reform in Russia, and asked him to come with him and John Fox to Ukraine…After meeting with President Kuchma, Soros directed Åslund to organize a team to work with the Ukrainians on their negotiations with the I.M.F. And he fired off a memo, distributed to the White House, the Treasury, the State Department, the I.M.F., and the World Bank, in which he argued that this was the moment, and this was the group.…The day the agreement was announced, Soros was attending a conference in Kiev sponsored by the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee, a group organized by Zbigniew Brzezinski; Henry Kissinger was there as well….Roman Shpek, the Minister of the Economy, who is leading the reforms, is a graduate of Soros’ Management Training Institute. The Institute for Public Administration, which Krawchenko heads, has also produced significant players…During Soros’ late-September visit a task force—including people from the World Bank, the Ukrainian government, and the Soros foundation—was created to wage a media campaign for the reforms.
What were the reforms actually about?
“Reform” here is yet another shining example of that which opens a country up to Western—meaning in this context corporate and financial—influence. Of particular note for our Slovenian readers, the Bank of Slovenia has accepted massive loans from the IMF, which is notorious for ditating policy (see: Iceland, Greece, etc.) in pillaging countries and keeping them on the neo-liberal reservation. Russia in the 1990s was absolutely looted by these exact same people, and this fact along with the consistent easterly pressure of NATO helps frame precisely why the current Russian invasion has occurred.
In the Ukraine, former Obama-appointed US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul bragged about the neoliberal Establishment’s open interference in the Ukraine’s election in the Washington Post in 2004:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities—democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc.—but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance Foundation did the same…Does this kind of intervention violate international norms? Not anymore. There was a time when championing state sovereignty was a progressive idea, since the advance of statehood helped destroy empires.
You said that state sovereignty used to be considered a progressive idea. Can you tell us more about that?
That was useful when traditional empires proved to be an impediment to the expansion of global capitalism, but as Kerry Bolton has written in tremendous detail, the destruction of these empires in addition to the vestiges of self-preservation-based regimes such as South African apartheid in order to initiate the next phase of the global garage sale of post-colonialism—and facilitate mass importation of these often disaffected and trained former colonial subjects into Western nations, or to train and return them to foment unrest and/or have allies in key positions—was vital. The corporate and moneyed interests continued plundering of the equatorial world and their hand-in-glove work with dysfunctional and corrupt regimes, to say nothing of the military-industrial complex’s enormous financial windfalls from the Third World’s seemingly endless civil wars, is producing the Establishment’s desired effects—tragic and deadly, but incredibly profitable and useful for weaponized migration.
So, the main goals are actually the personal interests of Soros and the international “neoliberal” establishment …
Also of crucial importance, the 1995 feature ominously foreshadows the fate of Slobodan Milošević and resistance to the “open society,” as “the Belgrade foundation…is repeatedly threatened with being closed down by the government of Slobodan Milošević.” We all know how that turned out. Be it NATO bombs or subversive propaganda—in the case of Yugoslavia, both—all resistance must be dealt with. Though Soros claims that “We are not running McDonald’s. Open Society is a different story,” it does seem like the Open Society Foundations are intent on knocking down every barrier and every unique structure to make way for a McDonald’s instead. Essentially, to paraphrase Mark Steyn, the Open Society/US State Department model is to turn every country in to a waiting area outside the gate at an airport—populated by anyone, home to no one, constantly in a state of transience.
How exactly are such changes brought about?
A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov rightly frame the color revolutions model first applied in Slovakia (in 1998, NGOs backed by the Open Society Foundations ran a “Rock the Vote” campaign to encourage voter turnout against then-Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar) and then Serbia in the context of a logical extension of the Cold War when the End of History didn’t occur, as Western proxies are used to undermine national sovereignty along the borders of the Russian sphere of influence to orient these nations in a more “pro-Western” direction; the neoliberal Establishment “create[s] an appearance of grand-scale social transformations that were allegedly in consort with hopes of the peoples” in the interests of “defeating a geopolitical adversary” and gaining another client state which will serve various purposes. This is done by funding agitators and so-called activists, seeding money to a bunch of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to produce the appearance of a grassroots movement for change, and fomenting unrest in order to destablizie a country and put pro-Western puppets in place who will transform the country and »open it up« to Western influence/control. They are not above funding jihadis and drug runners—see the neoliberal Establishment’s backing of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was basically a collection of criminals, traffickers, drug dealers, and jihadi terrorists responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs.
How would you define the strategy of the Open Society Foundations in general?
The predominant startegy of groups like the Open Society Foundations is to seed money to organizations that will disrupt the status quo of »closed« societies and make them more amenable to outside influence, and to place persons favorable to the implementation of their agenda in influential positions. In effect they first go where the armies cannot, but failing success, brute force is always an option left to the states whose governments support the globalist system where everywhere becomes nowhere, a vague neo-feudal pseudo-consumerist wage slavery of people who have no sources of meaning in their lives and are easily controlled and exploited.
What exactly are the main concepts of an »open society«?
The purpose of the »open society« is to destroy the social capital of a so-called »closed society,« which is one that has traditional views and is generally ethnically homogeneous. If not homogeneous, then it at least has either a unifying, workable model that is outside the global financial super-strucutre (the former Yugoslavia would be one such example, and is why NATO tabbed it for dismemberment before perversely accepting members of the defunct country into its ranks later) or cultural and ethnic preservation measures in place, such as that of the former Rhodesia and the ghost of South Africa. The United States had similar measures at one time as well. Though we may object to the methodology at times, and what was certainly not »separate but equal,« the logic was to preserve the ethnic and cultural integrity of certain groups. Remember that in South Africa, the extant black population and the Boer existed in relative harmony before British colonialism brought in huge numbers of alien black Africans as cheap labor. We see this done constantly throughout the West under the guise of some vague moral good, but it only hurts the host society and the alien peoples brought in who for the most part do not integrate well into the host society—and why would they? They are different.
Such “open society” concepts are often imposed on individual countries …
Some of the issues, such as in Kosovo, are a clear attempt to cut the legs out from countries like Serbia. Whether the ends resulted in some good as in independent countries that represented particular ethnicities, the means were not done altruistically. For example, Wesley Clark stated, according to The National Interest, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states” and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of cvilians during NATO’s “peacekeeping” bombing operations in Yugoslavia as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). According to the rationale for destroying Tugoslavia, countries like Slovenia and Croatia are a mere by-product, and they aim to be undermined through mass immigration and forced acceptance of refugees who are not actually refugees but mostly economic migrants and ighting age able-bodied males.
What can you tell us about The Open Society Initiative for Europe?
The Open Society Initiative for Europe works to “support groups that combat discrimination and xenophobia, and ensure the protection and well-being of refugees and migrants.” Its staff includes: Brandee Butler (“specialized in international justice as a program officer at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation…Earlier in her career, Butler received the Yale Law School Bernstein Fellowship for International Human Rights”); Goran Buldioski (“Before joining the Open Society Foundations, he worked for the Council of Europe, the Macedonian Center for International Cooperation, and the National Youth Council of Macedonia”); Magdalena Majkowska-Tomkin (“Prior to joining the Open Society Foundations in 2016, Majkowska-Tomkin served as the chief of mission for the International Organization for Migration offices in Hungary and Slovenia”); and Beka Vučo (“joined the Open Society Foundations in 1991, working as a regional director in the New York office where she helped establish Open Society foundations in the Western Balkans”).
Many argue that these are in fact conspiracy theories. How do you respond to such accusations?
The concept of the open society is not some off-the-wall idea thrown around by conspiracy theorists looking to defame George Soros at every turn—although as we see he is, in fact, central to the maintenance and expansion of the current globalist system which superficially espouses liberal democracy and in practice adheres closely to neo-liberalism, a system defined largely by the unrestricted movement of people, goods, and capital. The open society as an explicitly-articulated idea and ideal owes its origin to the philosopher Henri-Louis Bergson and especially Karl Popper, who published The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945, appropriately enough coinciding with the ushering-in of its global hegemony as an operating model for the next seventy-five years. That era is now drawing to a close, but suffice it to say the operating policy for the ruling class is to first »open up« a society—fracturing it totally—before once again »closing it down,« potentially as a unit absorbed into another, or else as a kind of province in the global empire.
Would you agree that one of the goals is the destruction of different national identities?
In a 2018 speech at the World Economic Forum, Soros explicitly states that nationalism is a problem and must be reversed; Russia in particular is cited as a problem. The rest of the ruling class has more in common with each other than the people they govern, and they clearly also regard a national identity for any country whether it be Russia or Zimbabwe to be a problem. They do, however, have a particular desire to undermine and shatter the Western countries.
There are a number of mechanisms the ruling class employs in order to get as many migrants into the West as possible. Some of them are fairly straightforward, such as the UNHCR and IOM’s »refugee resettlement« racket, and others are more complex, featuring a more blended approach, most commonly encompassing »philanthropic capitalism.« As an example of the latter, Transform Finance runs a training camp of sorts where attendees are »provide[d] a framework for the intersection of social justice and finance, where financial concepts are learned within the practical context of social justice efforts,« according to their website.
Then there is also the subversive Cultural Marxism…
While remaining fixed in a capitalist-communist binary remains advantageous to the ruling class, the reality is that neoliberalism is in its own right a fusion of the two, though with communism mutating into the social sphere in the form of Cultural Marxism. It is mutating, however, with the fusion of superficially-separate entities into one Leviathan. In effect, it does not matter if it’s Microsoft or the state that’s imposing social reengineering and demographic transformation on the terrestrial square it lays claim to, irrespective of ethnic and generational ties to it. The Open Society Foundations and other NGOs sit at the intersection of government and business/finance, in essence allowing more dexterity in implenting the aims the Establishment has in terms of blending humanity into one indistinguishable mass. Kerry Bolton calls this person of nowhere »homo globicus.«
The ruling class always refers to democracy, but no one has asked the people of Europe whether they agree with the import of migrants …
Despite the fact that everything the Establishment does is in the name of democracy, the whole exercise of elections is a sham. Democracy only works insofar as it aligns with the agenda of the ruling class. Should a majority—a vast majority in most cases—of the native population of a nation object to the importation of large numbers of aliens in whatever guise—migrant worker, »refugee,« immigrant—this is »xenophobic,« »racist,« et cetera, though of course these kinds of things are never put to vote, they’re just done. And where there is genuine movement to restrict or God forbid reverse the flow of aliens into a nation, as Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie puts it, »we must disrupt anti-immigration policymaking.« Though it is a work of fiction, Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints pretty accurately encapsulates the general ennui of the West and the social agitation leading to mass invasion from abroad. My book is less about those internal issues—which are extremely important and are a major part of the problem—but rather to outline the actors actively bringing aliens in and undermining our countries with poisonous ideologies and sentiments. There is no one reason or answer, but in understanding how groups like the Open Society Foundations attack cohesive cultures and try to detroy them, we can better resist their efforts.
What can readers expect from your book dealing with such topics?
The purpose of my book is not to be a postmortem of the West, as this has been done extensively elsewhere, and if you are reading this, you very likely understand that the previous era—neo-liberalism—is now rapidly transitioning into a transhumanist-informed, bio-digital age, which lies beyond the purview of the book. My purpose is, rather, to investigate the means by which so-called »open societies« are created, why, and to what ends. Through various intersecting ideologies and their applications, the individual nations of this planet have been and are continuing to be directed toward a singular all-controlling global entity, with the individuals comprising said nations directed into a bio-digital hive. If this all sounds rather conspiratorial, well—it is. But not all conspiracies are »theories« or wild fiction.
What features of the current neoliberal order would you highlight?
The neo-liberal system (World Order 1.0 coming out of World War II) is characterized by more outside private investment as vital for economic development (read: profit) and so-called »social development« (i.e. the Pride-Woke variety pumping sex hormones into five-year-olds, a tradgedy now well-familiar to most readers), as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in 2011 referring to Central Asia, a region prized for its tremendous natural resources especially in a coming time of scarcity, such as natural gas, oil, and »rare earths,« to say nothing of the geo-strategic buffer between Russia, China, and the Gulf States. The goal of Clinton and company has been for decades to knock down »bureaucratic barriers and other impediments to the flow of goods and people« to create the vaunted Open Society of »liberal democracy«—the kind that features marginalization of dissidents, censorship, and veneration of the defective while ruthlessly exploiting the population with an ersatz smile. In short, it is nether liberal nor democratic. Such a society is open, but not in the way that it’s presented.
Tell us, are there any tensions among the international “elites”?
The rhetorical tropes of »democracy,« »inclusion,« and the like are designed specifically in the West to disarm the native population’s objections to the flooding of their nation with often hostile aliens, facilitated by the vast machinery of the globalist Establishment, which encompasses NGOs, national governments, international governing bodies, corporations, financial institutions, various ideological and religious and ethnic interest groups, and a host of others. Though not entirely uniform, in that there are subsets within the Establishment jockeying for position as ultimate hegemons with sometimes competing visions, the general thrust remains uniform in its support for the noxious policies that have been so central to neoliberalism, from open borders to the erosion of civil liberties to vast amounts of wealth accruing in increasingly-few hands. For the post-humans/post-humanists, as globalism becomes lockdowns, social credit scores, and mandatory »vaccines« for COVID-19, the reader would do well to remember that those hands are the architects of this system, and the obvious beneficiaries; the only real disagreements are how they will allocate power to themselves and in what manner, who will occupy the very top, and what form humanity itself will take. It has been a long and step-by-step process, and the role of creating an »open society« with fertile ground for what comes next is the essential step in the agenda.
So all these groups are working together for the subversion of the West?
Whether it is demographic warfare masked as compassion or more humans-as-widgets for consumption in the neo-liberal model, there is a vast matrix of organizations that is part of this globalist infrastructure from the highest point down to the most local, which this book will explore. Thus we see the role of government agencies, proxies, and supra- and intra-governmental organizations melding with that of the private sector and various NGOs and grievance groups in not just weaponizing philanthropy, but in creating this vast infrastructure to enable social engineering and demographic transformation.
Authors who, like you, deal with these issues often highlight the role of the US government …
American foreign policy in large part had, and has, less to do with anything pertaining to national security, and more to do with the advancement of ideologically-motivated business and financial interests (and that of Israel). It is vital to understand this. The coopted American leadership is not alone in its endeavors, though it is more often than not the spearhead of, as A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov put it, »the task of weakening or destroying sovereign nations and placing their national resources under control of transnational corporations.« NATO and the European Union are generally in lock-step, although there are, particularly outside of the Anglosphere, some frictions. We should look at the accession of countries like Slovenia to the EU and NATO as occupation by a hostile foreign power. The following is an example of the kind of treatment American allies get; a leaked US embassy document from 2006 on WikiLeaks shows the push to open up the small Eastern European nation of Estonia to the same “diversity” bomb lobbed into so many other parts of the West, enabled in no small part by the United States government through various methods ranging from external pressure to subversion to outright military intervention to some combination thereof. In this instance, we see the push for cultural transformation targeting both the top and bottom, from prominent officials to schoolchildren, through active intervention by the United States government in pushing neoliberal ideologies, with the goal of making Estonians more amenable to the importation of alien, and often hostile peoples, thereby bringing about their ethnic and racial replacement:
Estonian authorities ought to add the teaching of the benefits of diversity and living in a multicultural society in school programs.…Estonian authorities need to provide support for the Press Council of Estonia and the Estonian Newspaper Association for training journalists on issues related to racism and racial discrimination.… On April 18 Post hosted a DVC between the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Estonian working-level government officials (national and local) and NGOs to discuss promoting tolerance in education and sharing best practices… The Ambassador spoke on the U.S. perspective and experience in promoting racial tolerance and diversity, and a diverse group of Embassy staff provided views on the theme.…During a six-week exchange program in April and May, visiting Fulbright School Administrator Gale Frazier helped to increase racial sensitivity and awareness among Estonian youth. Frazier, an African-American Director of Education at a private school in Chicago, spoke to at least 500 students at more than ten schools.…With special funding secured from State/EUR, the Embassy is providing $4,000 for the Tartu Black Nights Film Festival to screen U.S. films on the theme of cultural and racial tolerance.
These days, the ideology of »Woke-ism« is America’s chief export, alongside destructive wars of regime change.
In your book, you describe how Soros, through the Open Society Foundations, funds various NGOs and media. Tell us more about this …
Though the Soros fortune, which was arguably made through financial speculation, largely powers the Open Society Foundations, there are other entities that have provided substantial funding, such as the US State Department and USAID, the UK Deperatment for International Development (DFID), a number of explicitly-Jewish foundations, the Ford Foundation, and various financial institutions, both shadow and »legitimate.«
Planned Parenthood, which despite its claims to the contrary is little more than an abortion factory, is heavily supported by Open Society money, as are a number of mass immigration advocacy organizations and »tolerance and inclusion« advocacy groups, which push little but degenerate behavior and the erosion of the family and social cohesion. The Center for American Progress is a major think tank with connections to neo-liberal fixtures like the Clintons and John Podesta and owes much of its existence to Open Society support.
Particularly germane given the current situation in the Ukraine, provoked in no small amount part by the Soros cohort and the US State Department and its NATO allies, Open Society has been working in Ukraine through the International Renaissance Foundation since 1990.
Could you perhaps highlight some of the groups that receive money from Soros?
Here are some major and/or more recent grants awarded by the Open Society Foundations, pulled from their website, to give the reader a representative picture of the kinds of initiatives favored by Soros:
- American Jewish World Service (which is a massive supporter of the transgender agenda— The American Jewish World Service was founded in 1985 in Boston, and has donated close to $400 million to »social justice« causes in its existence; its website states that »AJWS funds constellations of organizations that are working on the same issues—both within countries and across borders.« Most of these issues seem to center on »climate change,« feminism, and LGBTQ causes.)
- Amnesty International (in Ireland, Greece, Hungary, and the US as examples; reading between the squishy language, it’s a pro-mass migration out of the so-called Third World and into the West)
- Asia Pacific Transgender Foundation
- Astraea Foundation (»to support the Grantee’s work in resourcing trans communities around the globe«)
- Bard College (a hyper Left-wing university in the US notorious for its absurdity; at least $100 million in 2020 »to support Bard College’s Center for Civic Engagement as the new administrative hub for the Open Society University Network’s operations.«)
- Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice (Similar to AJWS)
- British Overseas NGOs for Development
- Central European University (this is Soros’s university; an incubator for so-called »activists« and other people sympathetic to the Soros worldview; some notable alumni include: former Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili; Monica Macovei, a European Parliament member from Romania; Orsat Miljenic, Chief of Staff of the Office of the President of Croatia; Ivan Lesay, former State Secretary of the Finance Ministry of the Slovak Republic; Nikola Burazer, Serbian program director of Center for Contemporary Politics and executive editor of European Western Balkans; and Zdenek Kudrna is a researcher at the Institute of European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna and a consultant to the World Bank and UNDP, served as adviser to the Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic)
- Chatham House
- City of Seattle Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (»to support and coordinate city government outreach efforts to vulnerable immigrant communities during Covid-19 pandemic«)
- CCIB (»to support victims of Islamophobia and to pursue evidence-based advocacy towards institutions in order to tackle Islamophobia more generally in Belgium«)
- Damayan Migrant Workers Association
- E-Romnja (The Association for Promoting Roma Women’s Rights—Soros seems to have a strange fixation on Roma and »Roma rights«)
- English Collective of Prostitutes
- ERA—LGBTI Equal Rights Association (»to support the Grantee’s work on sustainability and quality of HIV and social support services in the Western Balkans«)
- EU Disinfo Lab (»non-profit organisation focused on tackling sophisticated disinformation campaigns targeting the EU, its member states, core institutions, and core values«; translation: reinforcing the neo-liberal propaganda machine)
- European Forum of LGBT Christian Groups (perhaps they ought to actually read their Bibles)
- Feminist Leadership and Mobilization on the Edge
- Frantz Fanon Association (»to expand the delivery and impact of a critical, ethnopsychiatric approach in support of refugees and migrants in Northern and Southern Italy, and provide emergency assistance to migrants and refugees in response to the COVID-19 pandemic«; Fanon was a black critical theorist and Marxist)
- Global Network of Sex Work Projects
- Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees
- Green New Deal Group
- Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) Europe (»to support litigation and advocacy in relation to the situation of migrants, NGOs and humanitarian workers on the island of Lesvos«)
- Initiative Black People in Germany
- Johns Hopkins University
- London School of Economics
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT—the three aforementioned universities are integral to the overall globalist-transhumanist-neo-liberal project)
- National Council of Jewish Women
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- President and Fellows of Harvard College (»to research media manipulation tactics and provide trainings around disinformation«)
- Racial Politics Consulting, LLC
- Refugees Welcome Italia
- Roma and Egyptians Youth Movement
- Roma of Ukraine Ternipe
- The Barack Obama Foundation
- TransAid Association (»to advance the rights of the trans, intersex and GNC communities in Croatia and support the organizational development of TransAid«)
- UN Women
- United Nations Development Programme
- UNESCO
- United Nations Foundation
- World Bank Group
- World Health Organization
We often find former government officials in positions within such foundations and organisations, don’t we?
The current president of the Open Society Foundations Mark Malloch-Brown, according to Influence Watch:
Is a British national who spent several years as a British government official. He received a knighthood from the British government for his work promoting left-of-center global initiatives and is a member of the House of Lords…Malloch-Brown has worked for several powerful international institutions in addition to OSF and the British Government. He was the head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) from 1999 to 2005 and later served as chief of staff to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General at the time. He also worked as head of external affairs at the World Bank. Malloch-Brown is affiliated with several academic institutions, including Oxford University’s school of government, the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and the policy institute Chatham House.
Did “Chatham House” also receive funding from Soros?
Chatham House is the leading British NGO filling a very similar role as the Open Society Foundations, USAID, and the like. It receives funding from a number sources, from government to corporate. Among some of the most notable are included: the Open Society Foundations, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, the US State Department, various British governmental arms, Global Affairs Canada (their USAID/DFID equivalent), the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Gates Foundation, the Future of Russia Foundation, NATO, Facebook, the City of London Corporation, Goldman Sachs, De Beers, the BBC, the European Commission, Bloomberg, Anglo-American, the US Department of Defense, the Rockefeller Foundation, Walmart, the World Food Programme, the Bank of England, embassies ranging from Israel to China to Saudi Arabia to Ukraine to Slovenia, and Robert Bosch Stiftung.
In your book you also write about the influence of Soros in the countries of former Yugoslavia. What can you tell us about this?
The Soros Foundation was already organizing seminars for academics, lawyers, and intellectuals in Europe at the Inter-University Center (IUC) in Dubrovnik in the 1980s, exploring the possibility of expanding the ideals of Soros and his cohort. On June 17, 1991, George Soros and Ante Marković, the prime minister of Yugoslavia, signed an agreement founding the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation to undertake projects in all of the country’s republics. In 1992, Soros and the Open Society Foundations established separate foundations in first Croatia and Slovenia; the Open Society Institute-Slovenia closed in 2000, although its work continued under different guises such as Ljubljana’s Peace Institute (Mirovni inštitut, founded in 1991).
What have you discovered about the Peace Institute in your research? What are its main objectives?
The Peace Institute’s current director Iztok Šori’s research, from the website biography, »is placed at the intersections of gender, migrations and work… In recent years, he has mainly studied (extreme right) populism, hate speech, [and] multicultural media education.« Šori received a scholarship from Robert Bosch Stiftung to study and work in Berlin in the realm of journalism. Robert Bosch Stiftung is one of the multitudinous NGOs supporting the »open society,«which funds organizations such as the German Marshall Fund of the United States alongside the Open Society Foundations, NATO, USAID, Google, the World Jewish Congress, Raytheon, and the European Council on Foreign Relations. Ideologically, all of these organizations are on the exact same page—pro-military-industrial complex, pro-mass migration, anti-nation-state, anti-democratic, despite their rhetoric. The Peace Institute’s major concerns, per their website, include »intolerance monitoring and hate speech, migration, asylum and integration, and GLBTQI rights.« The Peace Institute has not just been subsidized by Soros money through the Open Society Foundations, but also money from the European Commission and the Slovenian government. According to the Open Society Foundations’ Building Open Society in the Western Balkans 1991-2011 report, in Slovenia from 1996-2000, »The foundation also funded more than 500 civil society projects concerned with ecology, human rights…ethnic minorities, women’s rights, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights,« among others.
So is this Soros’s main outpost in Slovenia?
The Peace Institute remains a proxy of the Open Society Foundations, and should be treated as such. According to a 2004 report from the Open Society Foundations, »The Program’s institutional partner in Slovenia, the Peace Institute, began an initiative to empower minorities in the media in multicultural societies, and continued its work on migration and citizenship issues and the greater inclusion of marginalized groups.« One particular preoccupation appears to be the Roma. According to the Peace Institute’s 2019 Annual Report, »In Slovenia, like in other European countries, we are witnessing organised attacks on democracy and solidarity by exclusionary and nationalist politics. Among targets are also non-governmental organisations, which are portrayed by right-wing populists as parasites and enemies of the nation, along with migrants, LGBTQ community, Roma, Muslims, the poor and other minorities.«
What do these groups, institutes and foundations focus on most? What is their strategy in Slovenia and elsewhere?
During the Peace Institute’s 30 Year Celebration in 2021, several participants noted the emphasis on media in particular as a focus of the Open Society Institute. Ljubljana Digital Media Lab (Ljudmila), for example, was started in 1994 by a group of new media artists and activists in Ljubljana within the new media program of the Open Society Institute – Slovenia. Beka Vučo, regional director of the Open Society Foundations in New York for foundations in the countries of the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to December 2020, stated in an online discussion on the legacy and work of the Open Society Foundations on May 6th, 2021, »The foundation thus contributed to the development of many areas – civil society, media, and journalism, higher education, education, culture and art, publishing, libraries, environmental protection, health (including the launch of a palliative care program), gender equality, the work of Roma organizations, East-East exchanges, and cooperation, individual travel fellowships for study visits abroad for scientists, artists, journalists… This has resulted in several spinoff programs and non-governmental organizations – PIC, Ljudmila, Pina, Kibla, SRCe, Step by step, Pro et contra.« OSI’s East East Program served as a resource for Hungarian NGOs looking to network and build partnerships with other groups in the region, funding projects between Hungarian NGOs and partners in Albania, Romania, and Slovenia.
Slovenia was therefore one of the countries that had to be “opened up” …
The Open Education Policy Network is supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Open Society Foundations; their Opening Up Slovenia project is »a bottom-up approach to policy development and implementation. Above all the initiative is a framework for engaging various stakeholders in order to discuss and implement openness in support of the digital transformation not only of education but also of businesses, industry and government.« One of the central goals, according to their website, is to »Create a collaborative environment for interdisciplinary and intersectoral research, development and deployment projects of open education where cooperation of public, private and non-governmental sectors will be paramount. This objective will be achieved by fostering public-private and public-public partnerships that will ensure sustainable national, EU and international funding (e.g. Erasmus+, Horizon2020, European Structural and Investment Funds, World Bank, UNESCO, US educational institutions).« Funds such as Horizon 2020 also allocate funds to aiding and incentivizing migration into Europe.
It is a quite extensive network of globalists …
These kinds of partnerships define the network of open society organizations, which encompass not just the NGOs, but the corporate superstructure of the globe as well as governments and other actors. It is a vast web, and its byzantine quality does not allow for much transparency. It is defined by soft power and propaganda, although as mentioned, force is not out of the question.
George Soros has become the most mentioned name in connection to any kinds of foreign liberal subversions, enforcement of multiculturalism, and support of mass migrations, etc. But are there any equally important global players behind the subversive currents in the West that we do not hear so much about?
Although it is gaining much more notoriety—with good reason—for its Great Reset, the World Economic Forum appears to be taking the mantle of Soros in re-shaping Europe, the West, and quite frankly the whole planet. They more seamlessly integrate buzz issues like climate into a fundamental re-structuring of human society, much more so than Soros and the social revolutionites of the past. They are closer to the Bolsheviks, but paradoxically come from high finance. That said, given the long history of Wall Street and prominent European bankers in financing such movements, this should come as little surprise. The current iteration of this global system also incorporates additional elements for invasiveness such as technology and the medical-industrial complex, the latter of which especially overlaps with the transgender-industrial complex to a large degree. The central figures of the World Economic Forum are fully in support of techno-medical interventions and the transhumanist ideology, which robs humans of sovereignty and aims to make a »hackable« and endlessly customizable. You would not have a say in anything in your life, including your bodily integrity.
The founder and leaders of WEF is Klaus Schwab…
World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab—a leading figure for the implementation of the »Internet of Things,« the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the Great Reset—states that, »The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world. … One of the most striking and exciting transformations caused by the pandemic has been our transition to the digital ‘everything.’«
Like with the Soros´ Foundation, are there many influential groups among the supporters of this forum?
To show just how wide-spread the World Economic Forum is and the kinds of power and influence they already wield—and also consider the horrible ways in which the political leaders listed, for example, have treated their citizens, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic—the following figures are a representative sample of alumni of the World Economic Forum’s Forum of Young Global Leaders:
- Emmanuel Macron (President of France, also a former Rothschild banker)
- Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister of New Zealand)
- Mark Zuckerberg (Founder/CEO of Facebook/Meta)
- Peter Thiel (PayPal, Facebook)
- Lea Wermelin (Minister for Environment, Ministry of the Environment of Denmark)
- Vasudha Vats (Vice President of Pfizer)
- Renee Maria Tremblay (Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of Canada)
- Irene Tinagli (Member of the European Parliament, Belgium)
- Jens Spahn (MP, Germany)
- Mirjam Staub-Bisang (CEO, BlackRock Asset Management Switzerland AG)
And the list goes on and on. Indeed, a quick glance at the World Economic Forum’s partners shows pretty much every single major corporate player and many other entities besides (such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Flanders, and more).
Klaus Schwab, the founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum spearheading the Great Reset, has been an associate of Henry Kissinger’s (also a Davos participant) since his time at Harvard University in the mid-1960s. Schwab’s work sits at the nexus of much of the transhumanist-globalist Hivemind activity and its future direction, and it is worth looking more deeply at Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the tentacle-like connections that span the globe with the aim of totally enveloping it, although that is beyond the scope of this interview. I would encourage readers to do just that.
You are also the author of a book called The Transgender-Industrial Complex. What role does Transgenderism has in the subversion of the West?
Transgenderism is the ultimate form of gaslighting. If you can get a population to accept multitudinous genders when in reality human beings are sexually dimorphic, you can get them to accept anything, even eating maggot sausages to delay the carbon-induced apocalypse. It serves other purposes, too, such as the humiliation and degradation of an occupied state’s population, the literal mental retardation of the affected population, and the added consumer economy windfall produced by people »switching genders« and »identifying« with consumer goods that have been linked to this political/lifestyle/identity choice. It is materialistic, hyper-individualistic, and also totally at odds with reality. The prostate of a »trans woman« doesn’t magically become something else; surgical modifications and hormones and lies do not undo nature. If you accept that sex and gender are independent of each other, then it is axiomatic that a transgendered individual may believe themselves to be »born into the wrong body« despite not having the corresponding chromosomes, whereby they may endeavor to undergo hormone treatments, surgical modifications, and a wardrobe change. Born this way? Interesting that for homo-, bi-, and pansexuality said sexuality is immutable, and yet when it comes to gender it’s fluid. The contradictions are endless, but the power of propaganda is such that it doesn’t matter, and that is very scary. One of the most powerful weapons in the ruling class’s arsenal is gaslighting, and with their stranglehold not just on the media apparatus and academia, but also on all of society’s institutions, their job is made that much easier.
It is therefore another aspect of the implementation of the globalist agenda …
These efforts are, quite literally, state sponsored, although support is by no means limited to the state and various supra-governmental apparatuses with the NGOs, corporations, and more. They are all essentially uniform in their support for this particular pre-packaged agenda, sometimes referred to as »globalism,« anyway. Due to said uniform nature and shared interests and aims externally— meaning there are internal disagreements about the allocation of power and there is at least one major fault line factionalizing the push for domination—from a practical perspective, i.e. how these disagreements affect the 99% of the planet’s population being treated as pawns, these disagreements have little bearing on the overall thrust of the Establishment. Though it sounds ironic for self-styled revolutionaries to be the Establishment, they are in fact part of the same power structure. I challenge you to identify one single institution that they do not control. Furthermore, this »revolution« is being carried out against nature, order, and the very fabric of reality, is degrading by every measure, and is fundamentally anti-truth and anti-reality.
Authors such as you who write about these issues often face censorship. Have you also had this experience?
In many places, what I’ve already stated, despite its obvious factuality, is considered »hate speech« and is punishable by law because we all know the more self-evidently true something is, the more it needs to be accompanied by draconian punishments for anyone who questions it. When the law isn’t called upon to suppress contradictory evidence, an army of professional »activists,« grievance-mongering NGOs, corporations, academics, and media functionaries lie in wait for any excuse to swarm Wrongthinkers. I know because upon publication of the book this happened to me, and a campaign was successfully conducted to have the book removed from Amazon.
How do you respond to various »hate speech« accusations?
There are real concerns here, and »hate« has nothing to do with it, unless of course we’re talking about the »hate speech« legislation being used to wipe out dissent or hating what’s being done to psychologically vulnerable people and children. It should go without saying that children are off-limits, but this perverse and disgusting agenda is zeroing-in on them as guinea pigs for hormonal and surgical experimentation, and for ideological reasons. While the media insists that detaining any random person who shows up in the West demanding entry (if the government even bothers to stop them anymore) is »torture,« children who have just learned to talk are apparently able to determine their »gender identity« and to consent to the introduction of puberty blockers which stunt growth and cause infertility, bone and other health complications, and even death.
Would you say that transgenderism is so-called social engineering?
Like race, gender is framed by the ruling class as essentially only skin-deep (although this framing is fraught with contradiction at basically every turn), when the reality is that sex and race reflect something much deeper and more profound. For an indoctrinated and dumbed-down population raised on sloganeering and devoid of critical thinking faculties, this does not matter. It’s plug-and-play. Transgenderism is a vehicle for social engineering by the Establishment, and its methods of recruitment and mental re-configuring map very closely with those of notorious cults like Synanon. It preys on the mentally ill and vulnerable, breaking them down and re-forming their identities in the desired image of the cult leader or leaders. Extensive research shows that between 52% and 82% of self-identified transgender persons have at least one or more DSM-listed psychiatric conditions or personality disorders beyond their gender dysphoria. Happy, well-adjusted people do not join cults, and, as Margaret Singer noted, »If the social structure has not broken down, very few people will follow.«
What are the main purposes of this agenda, especially in relation to transgender?
The intent is clear: to serve as a potent means of propaganda and mind control; to demoralize, weaken, and dumb down the population to make them more compliant; to create a new »victim class« for political exploitation and to further splinter the family and atomize the native population; and to produce new »markets« for increased profit. Some of the worst excesses are very obviously done for sport or out of malice, showing that beyond the horizontal view, it is a rejection of natural law, representative of the advanced decay of a civilization being eaten alive from the inside-out, spreading its diseased anti-morality across the globe. It is, in no uncertain terms, pure evil, and the people and organizations so far introduced are just the tip of the iceberg.
Is your book on the transgender issue related to the aforementioned book on Soros’ Open Society?
Interestingly enough, I pretty much wrote these two books concurrently; they could definitely be considered companion works. Regarding the LGBTQ etc. agenda specifically, let’s look at Slovenia more narrowly first.
Tell us more about it. As we know, the Mayor of Ljubljana, Zoran Janković, is the initiator of the LGBT agenda …
The city of Ljubljana appears to be fully on board with this LGBTQ agenda; in a 2013 publication called »Rainbow Ljubljana,« Zoran Janković, Mayor of the City of Ljubljana, declared, »I would like to be able to marry the first same-sex couple in Slovenia as soon as possible.« The City of Ljubljana finances a number of LGBTQ NGOs. The Lesbian Library is co-funded by the City of Ljubljana and was housed in a building owned by the Ministry of Culture and home to a variety of more than 20 NGOs. the LGBT friendly public policy and its initiative into LGBT friendly certification which started in 2014. The main aim of the policy is to »change broader social attitudes to the LGBTQ+ community through educating members of staff in the city.«
What can you tell us about the situation in Slovenia more generally?
Legebitra is a major LGBTQ NGO in Slovenia and it is financed by several European Union initiatives, several Slovenian government initiatives, the City of Ljubljana, several major pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline, and ILGA Europe, a massive LGBTQ NGO. Their 2019 conference in Prague was funded in part by the European Union and the Open Society Foundations. As an example of Open Society support for the LGBTQ agenda in Slovenia, in 2015, the Open Society Initiative for Europe, the Open Society Human Rights Initiative, and the Arcus Foundation called for »applications from civil society organizations active in European countries for projects aiming to respond to a particular threat and seeking to build on more general opportunities for further progress« in the LGBTI/reproductive rights (a euphemism for abortion) arena; Slovenia was one explicitly-named target region.
So this is just a part of global efforts…
The official position of the 150-plus-member-organization Transgender Europe, according to their website, is that »the struggles for racial justice and trans liberation are interconnected« and that »Black trans refugees and asylum seekers also face structural violence in heavily policed and militarised areas such as border controls and migration offices.« Transgender Europe, in turn, is supported financially by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and the Government of the Netherlands, and has in the past received support from the German Federal Foreign Office, the US State Department, the Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (Österreichischer Austauschdienst, or OeAD), the Arcus Foundation, and Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
Pamela Valenti is a prime example of the inter-connectedness of the people involved in promoting this agenda; she is a senior advocacy specialist at the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels, where she works on EU digital policies and foreign affairs. She joined the Open Society European Policy Institute in 2015, having previously worked as an EU advocacy consultant for the Open Society Eurasia Program on »human rights and democracy« in the Eastern Partnership countries and Central Asia, as a grant-making assistant for the European Endowment for Democracy, as a researcher for the European Parliament, and as a trainee for ILGA-Europe.
Heather Grabbe, Director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, is another. The Open Society European Policy Institute »works to ensure that open society values are at the heart of EU policies and actions, both inside and outside its borders.« EU policies and actions are lock-step with the Open Sociey/US State Department/etc. neo-liberal order. Grabbe is an »advocate for democratic pluralism and open societies.« She was ranked highly among »the women who shape Brussels« by Politico, gave a TED talk on the »importance of critical thinking and mindful engagement with post-truth politics,« and has written recently on »how climate change and technology are affecting the quality of democracy and economic and social justice.« From 2004 to 2009 she was senior advisor to then-European Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn, responsible for EU policy on the Balkans and Turkey. Previously, she was deputy director of the Center for European Reform, where she wrote extensively on EU external policies and enlargement. She also conducted academic research at the European University Institute (Fiesole, outside Florence), Chatham House (London), Oxford and Birmingham Universities, and taught at the London School of Economics.
What role does Soros play in all this?
In 2016, Soros’s Open Society Foundations published the last of its subsequent issue-specific briefs in the »License to be Yourself« series, entitled »License to be Yourself: Responding to National Security and Identity Fraud Arguments« where we see »trans issues« used as a way to neuter countries’ border control and enforcement capabilities under the guise of »human rights.« Whether it’s Slovenia, Montenegro (supported by NGO Juventas and its donors the Open Society Foundations, USAID, UNDP, the Global Fund, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the European Commission, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the US and British Embassies in Podgorica, and the Delegation of the European Union to Podgorica, among others), the United States, Canada, or wherever, you’ll find the Open Society Foundations working to undermine the host culture and promote this degenerate madness.
The Open Society Foundations seeds money to numerous LGBTQ NGOs, and the goal is indoctrinate the youth and destroy the family. It plays into the desire to fracture »closed« societies and atomize people to the point where they have no real connection to anything. Like migration and many other pet projects of the so-called open society, it indulges fantasy and celebrates and rewards falsehood and punishes truth. I trace the genesis of the so-called transgender phenomenon in The Transgender-Industrial Complex, and needless to say, it is a completely artificial creation pulled from some dubious sources and generally articulated as a coherent concept only in the 1930s. There is significant overlap between open society projects and LGBTQ projects; the principal actors are essentially the same. In fact, in many instances, these various organizations will explicitly tie together disparate issues as they ultimately want uniformity despite their claims of celebrating diversity. Consider one example: a 2020 grant from the Open Society Policy Center to the ILGA Foundation »to support the Grantee’s work on COVID-19 emergency response.« What does that have to do with anything? Step back and consider the medical-industrial complex implications (and think of the massive role of Big Pharma in things like treatments for HIV/AIDS and hormone replacement in transgendered people) and it starts to become much clearer. I explain this much more thoroughly in the book, but the point here is to start outlining how this agenda works: eventually all roads lead to the same awful destination.
You can order Scott Howard´s books HERE
