TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

George Soros had begun to make a name for himself as a conscience-free economic hitman as early as World War II, collaborating with Nazis, which he described as “the best time of my life.” A subsequent exchange recalls that he went out with a protector who swore he was his adopted godson, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. When asked if it was difficult, the respondent says, “Not at all. No problem,” and adds that even if he weren’t there, somebody else would be taking it away anyway, suggesting a market-driven rationale for the actions. The narrative then traces a mentorship under the Fabian Society’s Karl Popper at the Langdon School of Economics, where Soros acquired his idea of open societies as a cover for world government control. It also notes an Edmund de Rothschild–connected influence: George Karlweiss, chairman of the Rothschild Swiss-based bank Privy, endowed Soros with the financial resources to launch a new type of organization called a hedge fund. From that moment, the young speculator began to amass a fortune as a financial mercenary, released during the new age of deregulation and deployed to destroy the economies of any nation resisting a banker’s dictatorship through currency speculation. Using his ill-begotten resources, Soros was said to set up a network of private organizations to advance democracy-building around the world. In 1979, Soros’s Open Society Foundations came online and began to interface closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, which soon set up two offices in China in the 1980s. David Ignatius, the former head of the NED, admitted in 1991 that the organization was little more than a front for the CIA, noting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.” Throughout the 1980s, a new world order was staged, described by some as the end of history. In Hungary, Soros’ Open Society Foundations infused restructuring, privatization, and other market-driven reforms in 1988, leading to the emergence of a new oligarchical class beholden to Wall Street and contributing to election manipulation that ousted Ferdinand Marcos’s national leadership and installed Corazon Aquino in an early color revolution called the People Power Revolution. Russia warmly embraced Soros and the NED under Mikhail Gorbachev, who ensured the stage would be set for Russia’s submission to a new age of destruction called Perestroika. In the 1990s, the program was titled Operation Hammer by the Trilateral Commission’s George Bush Sr., a program of looting of former state enterprises under the watch of the IMF, taking the name “shock therapy.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the long-running effort to build civil society in the former Soviet Union, focusing on the Open Society Foundation’s role in Ukraine and the broader European reception of Vladimir Putin. Speaker 1 explains that the Cultural Initiative Foundation began in 1987 within the Soviet Union, and a branch was set up in Ukraine in 1990 two years before Ukraine’s independence. The foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society, and Speaker 1 asserts that the civil society’s maturity twenty-five years later is largely the work of the foundation. He notes that the foundation’s scholarships helped create a generation of leaders: those who were students twenty-five years ago became leaders later. Speaker 0 adds a personal observation that the new Ukrainian government and its leadership have been touched by Open Society and by Georgia, with many individuals personally benefiting from scholarships or having family members who did. The conversation then turns to the appeal of Ukraine as a model of open society, contrasted with broader European admiration for or susceptibility to Vladimir Putin. Speaker 0 points out that not all Europeans share the Ukrainian sympathy; she mentions that Hungary’s leader described Putin as a model, and cites Greece’s trips to Moscow and France’s Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. She asks how Speaker 1 explains Putin’s influence and appeal in Europe. Speaker 1 responds by situating the discussion in a political and historical context, noting his involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system. He describes himself as a political philanthropist and frames his perspective around the broader historical forces at play, implying that the appeal of Putin in some European circles is tied to these transformative historical currents. Key points: - The Cultural Initiative Foundation (established 1987 in the Soviet Union) and its Ukraine branch (1990) funded scholarships and civil-society work. - The foundation contributed to the maturation of civil society in Ukraine, with beneficiaries who became leaders two decades later. - Personal and institutional ties to Open Society and Georgia have touched Ukraine’s political leadership. - There is a notable divergence in Europe regarding Putin’s influence, with some leaders or groups appearing attracted to or engaging with Putin, while Ukraine’s open-society model is presented as a contrasting example. - Speaker 1 frames his view within a broader historical assessment of the collapse of the Soviet system, identifying as a political philanthropist.

Hillary introduced George Soros, stating the country needs fearless people like him. Soros expressed pride in being introduced by Hillary, admiring her understanding of open society and her effectiveness in Central Asia. He stated that he is engaging in the electoral process for the first time because he feels the need to stand up and do something. He said that through his foundations, he has provided financial support for people who believe in the idea of an open society.

My initial efforts began in South Africa, followed by Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed. I focused on Hungary in 1984, Poland in 1987, and China in the same year, effectively building what I call the Soros Empire to replace the Soviet Empire. Currently, I'm most involved in Russia, which mirrors the situation during the Soviet Union's collapse. However, the context has changed; back then, the Soviet Union was declining while the European Union was thriving. Now, we see a resurgent Russia and a disintegrating European Union, which is a concerning development.

The speaker outlines a project to map US State Department involvement with George Soros, The Open Society Foundations, and related entities across many countries, noting that the WikiLeaks cables (Kissinger, Carter, and Cablegate) cover 1973–2010 but omit the 1980s and 1990s. The goal is to create a comprehensive picture of how US policy has aligned with “George Soros, The Open Society Foundation, The Open Society Institute, every open society spandrel in every country.” The speaker highlights that Strobe Talbott in 1995 said US foreign policy had to be synchronized with allied governments and with Soros, describing it as “like working with a friendly, allied, independent entity, if not a government,” and stating that Soros then became “the number one political downer.” The narrative begins with precedents before the Open Society Foundation’s creation in 1979. In 1973–1975, Soros references appear in cables before the Open Society Foundation started. The speaker then focuses on a troubling example from 1976 in Gabon, via a Kissinger cable titled Visit by Brown and Root Executives to Gabon. Brown and Root, later Halliburton, is connected to George Soros through Brown and Root’s executives and projects. The CIA’s reaction to a Ramparts article about Brown and Root is discussed, showing Herman Brown (founder of Brown and Root) and his son George Rufus Brown as covert associates with the CIA under project LP coin, with Herman Brown serving as president and director of Brown and Root and trustee of the Brown Foundation. The claim is that both Herman Brown and his son had covert security clearances and were involved with CIA projects from 1965–1967, including potential service on the board of a CIA creation in Thailand/Laos. Brown and Root is described as one of Soros’s top five holdings in the mid-2000s, implying a CIA-connected origin for the company. A note is given that in Gabon, Soros Associates (founded by Paul Soros, George Soros’s older brother) is involved in port projects. Paul Soros’s shipping and engineering influence is illustrated by a Washington Post obituary, and the speaker mentions a related anecdote from Bill Burns’s autobiography The Back Channel about embassy construction projects in Russia being prebugged, and the implication that Western engineering firms with ties to intelligence could have facilitated spying. Before Open Society Foundations existed, in June 1975 Bandar Abbas Port Project in Iran involved three senior Dravo Corporation executives, plus International Systems, Van Houten Associates, and Soros Associates. The embassy was instructed to assist American bidders to ensure Soros Associates’ bid, noting Soros Associates’ engineering focus and the aim to eliminate competing bids. The government of Iran’s consideration of the American group and the influence of Soros’s bid on Iran’s judgment are documented. In Gabon, 1975–1976, financing arrangements are described: a financing package for Soros’s contract including a down payment by the Gabonese governor, an Export-Import Bank direct loan, and a First National City Bank loan, with the U.S. embassy consulting to emphasize more favorable terms and to potentially extend financing into a larger package. The accounts emphasize multiple U.S. government roles: Commerce Department, State Department, Export-Import Bank, and embassies, colluding to support Soros financing and projects, with the claim that this occurred years before the Open Society Foundations were created and began collaborating with U.S. agencies. The speaker suggests a long-standing family involvement, with older brother Paul Soros already coordinating with the State Department to secure deals for Soros Associates before 1979. The Mongolia story is promised as a later highlight. The compilation is framed as a five-decade pattern of government support for Soros-related deals, starting in 1973 and continuing through the Cablegate era.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, George Soros stepped in to fill the power vacuum in Hungary, Poland, and China in the late 1980s. This marked the rise of what some call the Soros Empire, taking over where the Soviet Empire left off. How successful do you think Soros has been in his imperial ambitions?

They discuss civil society in the former Soviet Union. They note the foundation in Ukraine was set up in 1990, two years before Ukraine's independence, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. The Cultural Initiative Foundation in 1987 funded scholarships and supported civil society; the maturity of civil society twenty-five years later is largely the foundation's work. The interviewer observes that Open Society has touched Ukraine's leadership through scholarships, with many leaders' families benefiting. The conversation shifts to Putin's appeal in Europe; not all Europeans share our view, with Hungary's leader describing Putin as a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, and Le Pen's links to Putin; the question is how to explain this influence. The interviewee offers a political-historical perspective, noting involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system and calling himself a political philanthropist.

George Soros discusses his work building civil society in the former Soviet Union, starting with the establishment of a foundation in Ukraine in 1990, two years before its independence, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia, which began in 1987. He notes the foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society. He expresses that the maturity of civil society in Ukraine 25 years later is largely due to the foundation's work. The interviewer notes that many leaders in the new Ukrainian government have been touched by the Open Society, either personally receiving scholarships or having family members who did. Soros says it is quite an experience to see the impact of the foundation over 25 years, as former students have become leaders. The interviewer then asks Soros to explain Putin's influence in Europe, given that some European leaders view Putin as a role model. Soros responds that he can take a historical perspective, as he was very involved in the collapse of the Soviet system, which he considers his debut as a political philanthropist.

Open Society's Ukraine foundation was established in 1990 as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia, part of a Soviet-era cultural initiative started in 1987. It provided scholarships and supported civil society, and, twenty-five years later, its work contributed significantly to the maturity of civil society. The speaker notes that many in Ukraine's leadership have been touched by Open Society and Jordan, with people receiving scholarships themselves or through spouses. He reflects that the impact over a 25-year period is evident: those students became leaders. The conversation also notes wide European admiration for Putin in some quarters—Hungary's leader calling Putin a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, Le Pen in France with close contacts to Putin—and asks how to explain Putin's appeal in Europe. The reply emphasizes a historical perspective from someone involved in the collapse of the Soviet system, calling himself a political philanthropist.

I set up the foundation in Ukraine in 1990, which is two years before the independence of Ukraine, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. There was a “set up cultural initiative Initiative Foundation in in The Soviet Union set in 1987,” and we've built this branch in Ukraine in 1990. The foundation did, gave a lot of scholarships and supported civil society, and “The maturity of civil society twenty five years later is to a large extent, the work of the foundation.” “The twenty five years later, they were leaders.” Not all Europeans agree: “the leader of your own homeland, Hungary, has described Putin as a model as a role model” and “Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin.” “I was very much involved in the collapse of the Soviet system. That was my debut as a what I call myself a political philanthropist.”

I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and it's been active ever since, playing a significant role in current events. It's similar to my work funding dissident activity and civil society groups in Eastern Europe during the 1989 revolutions. In Ukraine, we've also collaborated with Ukrainian leaders on agricultural revitalization and energy efficiency improvements, partnering with various companies. I even worked alongside George Soros on some of these initiatives.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

We have been given a blessing and our country needs us. George Soros is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. He is introduced by Hillary, who he admires greatly. Soros has seen her deliver a speech about open society and visit central Asia where he has foundations. He feels the need to become engaged in the electoral process in this country for the first time. In his foundations, he has provided financial support for people who believe in the idea of an open society.

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence from Russia, which has been active and influential in recent events. I appreciate criticism, but it should align with my views. During the upheaval, members of Congress, notably John McCain, visited Ukraine, showing support for those challenging their government. McCain's presence reassured the protesters in Maidan that they had backing from the United States. He emphasized that the struggle was about the future they desired and deserved for their country. What about the US ambassador?

I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, which has been active and influential in current events. While Putin will attempt to destabilize Ukraine, the majority of Ukrainians are committed to independence and aligning with the West. This struggle won't be easy, as Putin views a free Ukraine as a direct threat to his regime. Regarding accusations of anti-Semitism in Ukraine, it is indeed present, as anti-Semitism is historically rooted in this region.

During the 1989 revolutions, you funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic; are you doing similar work in Ukraine? He replies that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and that the foundation has functioned ever since and played an important part in events now. He says Ukraine can assert independence from Russia and move toward the West, though Putin will try to destabilize it; the large majority of Ukrainians are determined to be independent, and with freedom, free media, and a flourishing economy, his regime would be unsustainable. He is asked about antisemitism in Ukraine; he notes antisemitism is part of the DNA of that part of the world, and there is antisemitism.

George Soros explains that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent from Russia, and that the foundation has been functioning ever since and has played an important part in events now.

When the Maidan revolution happened, I was asked to advise the new Ukrainian prime minister on the economic crisis. I flew to Kyiv, and while there, I was told that the US had financed the people at Maidan. This supposed spontaneous revolution of dignity raises some questions. Where did all the media outlets come from? Who organized this? Where did the buses come from, and who called all those people in? It was clearly an organized effort.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

Interviewer notes Soros funded dissident activities during the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. Soros responds that he 'set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of, Russia' and that 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' Asked whether Ukraine will assert independence from Russia and orient toward the West (not specifically NATO), he implies challenges ahead, stating 'No. Putin will try to destabilize, Ukraine.' He reiterates the foundation's ongoing role, saying 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' The discussion ties Soros's past funding of dissident activities to his ongoing Ukrainian foundation's role.

George Soros is donating $500 million to help migrants and refugees start businesses, and he is urging others to do the same. Additionally, his foundation has committed $220 million to support leaders in black communities in the US. Soros previously pledged $1 billion to combat the spread of nationalism through a new university network. He considers this project the most important of his life and aims to build on the work of the Open Society Foundation.

George Soros stated he set up a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. According to Soros, the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in current events. Soros believes Putin will try to destabilize Ukraine.

The speaker states that the foundation was functioning before Ukraine's independence from Russia. They claim Biden was deeply involved in Ukraine and had more patience than they did in trying to convert Poroshenko into a democratic leader.

We have been given an extraordinary blessing and our country needs people like George Soros who are fearless and willing to step up. George Soros is introduced by Hillary, who admires her greatly. He praises her speech on open society and her effectiveness in visiting Central Asia. Soros agrees with Hillary that there are people who now feel the need to get involved in electoral politics. He feels the same way and wants to become engaged in the electoral process in the US. In his foundations, he has supported those who believe in the idea of an open society.

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence in 1990. Figures like George Soros were unfortunately everywhere in these events. This team consisting of people like Newland, Soros, and Biden, acted in favor of Hillary Clinton's interests and tried to prevent Mr. Trump from being elected. We can look at the Arab Spring in North African countries such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, as well as the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in 2004. The Revolution of Dignity in 2013 and 2014, all of this is related to his activities. He continued his operations in 2015 and 2016. Hunter Biden had deals in Ukraine, being on the board of directors of an oil and gas company in Ukraine. This explains the economic interests of the Biden family. Then there's the matter of supposed Russian election interference.