Interview on Radio Ya by Alvaro Peñas and José Antonio Ruiz de la Hermosa to Juan Antonio de Castro de Arespacochaga, Doctor of Economic Sciences and Professor of International Economics and Development at the Complutense University of Madrid. Juan Antonio de Castro is one of the largest specialists in the world in the figure of George Soros. For more than two decades he has been a permanent United Nations official at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva, as well as a professor at the University of the Swiss city. Co-author of “Soros. Breaking Spain”, a book that points to the financing and influence of George Soros in Catalonian separatism, and of “It is not only Soros”.
Your first book about Soros has become a reference book, but “It is not only Soros” is having even greater success.
The truth is that the first book arose from an alarm call because they were attacking our sovereignty in Catalonia. Soros became more and more talked about, and it has been two years now. The book has sold a lot, it has had a lot of interest and attraction, and that made me wonder: Who else is with Soros? Because it was not just him, but Gates, Zuckerberg, Jim Bezos, and other oligarchs who have decided they have to make their mark. They are corporate captains, first and foremost, and they have a hierarchical and entrepreneurial vision of the world and the future, and therefore authoritarian. There is something psychological about these people, apart from their alliances with governments, their meddling with international bodies, the money they put everywhere to control and bribe the media, the institutions, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights. What is this meddling by private actors who have no democratic legitimacy? I have no reason to follow the advice of a European Court of Human Rights that is represented by judges in the pay of a private man whom I did not vote for and who has no legal legitimacy whatsoever. And it is the same in many, many other institutions that have been bribed, that have been bought. Not to mention the independence of the media, of so many media that have allowed themselves to be bought, such as the BBC or Bloomberg. The list is long. People who do not deny that they have received money because they are in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation itself.
Regarding the European Court of Human Rights, in the vote for the Belgian judge for the court, the Open Society candidate was defeated last week. Gregor Puppinck, the author of the report that uncovered Soros’ influence on the ECHR, welcomed the news and noted that there is an intention to change the procedure for selecting and electing judges. In other words, the report is actually affecting.
Gregor Puppinck is a good friend. In fact, when I finished the work in Catalonia, I found out that there were judges at the European Court of Human Rights who were connected to the Open Society Foundation. So I called him and we spent a whole morning collating information. Three months later he came out with his report. It was scandalous. It is scandalous that a court that makes jurisprudence for human rights justice in Europe and around the world is dominated by private individuals who have no representation, who we have not given representation to, and who have no right to influence anything of ours. Unless money has replaced political representation, which would not surprise us, but at least let it be known. Unfortunately, many media in Spain did not give this report the slightest importance. In Europe, too, little importance was attached to it. Anything that sounds like a criticism of Soros is immediately covered up by fear or interests, by people who are paid or who do not want to risk their professional careers.
I think the time has come to tell the truth. And at that moment Puppinck had the courage to face the world, and little by little he made himself known. And what has happened is very important, it is what he asked for in the report, that they think twice before appointing new judges. And they are not just judges. There is a figure in the European Court of Human Rights who is the amicus curiae, who is the one who provides evidence and proof to the judges. These are NGOs and they are all of Soros. 89-90% of the NGOs that give reports for the judge to make his decisions are Soros NGOs. So even if you don’t have the judges, you have the NGOs that present the evidence. Puppinck also revealed that. In fact, his own NGO fights in every case, giving evidence against what the Soros NGOs provide. He is trying to break a monopoly, a human rights monopoly.
What can you tell us about Gregor Puppinck? Will this defeat of Soros mean the end of his monopoly at the ECHR or will it not be so easy?
No, it won’t be easy at all. Gregor Puppinck runs the European Centre for Law and Justice, an NGO in Strasbourg financed solely by private individuals. People who defend the family, life, and conservative, ethical views of the world. And it has been pitted against all of this. I am pessimistic for a reason. I know the Open Society well. I have confronted it in Angola. We have even gone to court in London against them. And when they lose, they hide their hand and look for a way to enter from another side.
But who chooses the judges? Why do they choose these judges? There is no other way for the judges to be chosen.
Well, this was told to me by Puppinck himself, who is the most knowledgeable in this field. The influence process of Soros’ Open Society is so strong, so big, that it dominates from the very beginning of the creation of the judge himself. First of all, it only targets small countries where it has control, where it controls with its NGOs even the universities and institutes where these lawyers are trained, lawyers who end up being judges in the country at the national level. They follow them, support them, finance them. Then they get the government to present him as a candidate to the Council of Europe. Then, thanks to the influence they have and because they are the first paymasters of the Council of Europe (Soros and Gates are their main private financiers), they get the Council of Europe to choose that judge and from there it goes to the European Court of Human Rights.
In other words, the itinerary is riddled with control. What you have to look for is where the gaps are, where there is no control. The controls have to be removed. But that means kicking Soros and his Open Society out of the countries, as Russia and Hungary have done. I think this is a healthy decision. Countries have to take this seriously. The problem is whether they are going to do it or not, and how much influence Soros has, not only in those institutions but with the governments themselves. We know that he finances government and opposition at the same time so that he always wins in the game. It is very difficult to control money.
If Soros’ behavior in Europe is the same as in Spain, where the first person the current president met was precisely George Soros, what is the situation we are in? How is it possible that he has had such control?
Soros’ great invention is to control global civil society. Because it is civil society that in turn controls the institutions. In the 1980s or 1990s, an NGO was a mere observer in the UN room, but today it is the NGO that presents evidence in the Court of Human Rights, it is the one that tells the Council of Europe how to behave, or kick out Pedro Agramunt, who was president of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. In the end, NGOs have hijacked the opinion and role of global civil society. If you have civil society and the media in your hand, you have absolutely everything. The question is that people end up realizing that this threat is totalitarian, it is fascist, it is absolutely against democracy.
Soros has visited the members of the European Commission 49 or so times over the course of the year. In fact, one MEP asked in the European Parliament what Soros was doing appearing there when he has no democratic legitimacy and we don’t know what they are doing or what they are planning. There has still been no answer from anyone. One day it will come out because there must be a lot more, but there is a lot of fear.
The political leaders of the center party, Inés Arrimadas, and of the liberal right, Pablo Casado, were guests at the Bilderberg Club. What relationship do these politicians have with Soros?
That Soros is in the Bilderberg club is obvious. And all the pawns he has inside are absolutely globalist. And we have Ana Botín, president of Banco Santander, on the executive board of the Bildelberg. She is the one who summons Casado and Arrimadas. I think we have to go a little higher. Here there are forces in the European Union that are much higher and with more power, precisely because of the influence of Soros and his lobbies and NGOs in Brussels, and when you see these political leaders and, especially in the case of Casado, their change of attitude, you realize that they are following orders. In the end, it is shameful that there are leaders of a respectable party like the Partido Popular who have fallen so low as to represent practically nothing in the sense of allowing themselves to be manipulated. And I think people also realize that. Casado and Arrimadas are invited by Ana Botín and the whole Bilderberg group and I think they come back quite changed.
If all politicians, or almost all politicians, are bought, to what extent can they do anything for their country?
On a general level, we have always known that politicians have been influenced by money. Many have had the honesty and loyalty to their people not to be bought and others certainly have been. The problem is that today it is all different because it is all too obvious. The links are all too easy to see when we look at the visits to Sánchez by Soros or the possible visits Sánchez may have made to see Podesta in the United States, the adviser to Obama, who is Soros’ right-hand man. On his return from that trip, he took over the party and the presidency of the government. How does this relate to all that? Whether or not he received support from Podesta or Soros. It is all too obvious.
In other words, we have unprincipled individuals who impose principles on the rest of us.
They impose on us the principles they have created from the bottom up and do not come from natural law. Because any human being can create human rights, but if that human being is a twisted being, the human right that will emerge is disgusting. And that is what is happening today. We have had human rights. Natural law inspires the rights of the French Revolution, which are then the rights of the United Nations. It’s that Christian phenomenon, it’s the Christian religion, it’s Christian values that permeate all of that. There were some principles, some pillars. And these people have come to discover for us what LGBTQI is, what hatred is, and everything else. That’s the new cultural code that they’re imposing on us, and the old one didn’t work. But what they are doing is destroying the pillars of Western culture, making us abhor them and leaving us empty.
Can’t this do away with democracy? What does the future hold for us?
The first thing all these globalists want, as we know, is to halve the population and I hope they are not already doing that. And they care very little about what the serfs below the wall might shout in this new middle age. And what it leads to is a totalitarian dictatorship that we can call whatever we want: fascist, new fascism, authoritarianism without democracy, etc. How? Geopolitically, I get the feeling that the picture could be the United States, China, Russia, and perhaps India, which are not cracking because they are the only empires that are going to stay in one piece.
Here national sovereignty is only in question for the weak. So, as the New World Order has seen very clearly, the future is to maintain these empires and leave all the others fragmented and run by administrations. In Europe, it is very easy and they have been working on it for a long time, a Europe of the regions or the peoples. Run by whom? Well, by no one legitimately elected. We have not elected anyone to the European Commission. The European Parliament does not promote laws, we do not have a political organization, so if we are left at the level of the regions, around an administration, what we are is servants of a dictatorship, of a bureaucratic administration that we did not elect either. And who directs this administration? Well, these groups, those who provide the money and the influence, and are in their offices 49 times a year. And I think that’s our future if people don’t open their eyes. We will lose freedoms day after day with ministries of truth, like the one that Gates has created, a global ministry of truth run by Microsoft and several global companies that in 10 minutes, when you say a single word like a vaccine, will quickly go to the social network and in less than an instant your YouTube will disappear. That’s what awaits us. But there are a lot of people who are not ready for this. Why did we land in Normandy? Why did we save Europe? Why did we want to regain freedom if we don’t keep it? Many people are not going to surrender, which will cause a reaction. Don’t let the globalists think they have it won. There are a lot of people who are starting to get fed up and the only thing to do is to get everyone to choose because the choice is very easy. Globalism or freedom.
Alvaro Peñas and José Antonio Ruiz de la Hermosa