The Protocols Without Zion

Atlantic Centurion
August 22, 2016


The (((Soros))) leaks, a series of internal communiques from the Open Society Foundations (((OSF))), are going to go down the memory hole very, very fast. (((George Soros))) is a leading bankroller of “progressive” causes, sponsor of color revolution attempts in Europe, check writer for #blacklivesmatter, and a multi-million dollar donor to the Clinton presidential campaign. In other words, the guy is pretty untouchable. Moreover, bringing him up gets you labeled a tin-foiler or a conspiracy theorist. Using big money to sway elections and manipulate politics is wrong and we’ve got to get money out of politics, but if you complain about leftists doing it you’re just a paranoid lunatic. Oh and anti-semitic too.

Speaking of which, a sizable amount of people on the deeper end of our political pool like to bring up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when talking about (((Soros))) or the JQ. There are two huge problems with this though. First of all, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a plagiarized hoax. The text is a Russian revision of an anti-papal treatise originally written in 19th century France. Get over it. You can explain the JQ without resorting to a debunked document that is rightly associated with cranks. But wait—don’t people like (((George Soros))) seem to render the authenticity debate moot? What does it matter if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real or not if he’s behaving in accordance with it anyway? So this is where we get to problem number two. (((George Soros))), while seemingly the platonic form of an anti-goy kayak who funds and shills far-left moral causes, open borders immigration for Europe and the United States, and anti-nationalism in the service of a global financial capitalist agenda, is actually more of a principled third worldist and rootless cosmopolitan than a likudnik.

In other words, he is not a Zionist. He’s undoubtedly part of a long tradition of ethnic Jewish activism against White societies, but he does not fit the pattern of “open borders for thee, not for me,” or “nationalism for Israel, cosmopolitanism for everyone else.” He’s the Protocols without Zion. There is an important nuance to his anti-zionism, however, which I will get to later. First I want to give a quick overview of someone whose life couldn’t possibly be more Jewish.

(((Soros))), born György Schwartz, grew up in Hungary during WWII and was taught (((Esperanto))) by his father, a non-observant Jew. According to (((Soros))), the family changed its name because of anti-semitism. Some hyper-neocon websites like (((FrontPage Mag))) allege he was a “nazi collaborator,” which is probably vaguely correct as the occupying German forces did employ segments of the Jewish population in administering ghettos. Then again, we have to take their narrative with a grain of salt, since the intention is to connect his anti-zionism to “being a nazi collaborator.” In other words, they are attempting to frame (((Soros))) as a lifelong traitor to the Jewish people in order to explain his anti-zionism, because they don’t understand how cosmopolitan elitism and third worldism work. I think it goes without saying that the man who wants Germany converted into multicultural dystopia is not a national socialist.

After the war, he emigrated from Hungary and went to England, and later the United States. In the demesne of the eternal Anglos, he had a successful career in volcanic services/financial firms like (((Singer and Friedlander))), (((F.M. Mayer))), (((Wertheim & Co.))) and (((Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder))), before finally founding the (((Soros Management Fund))). Yes, nearly every lucrative job he’s ever had has been the result of ethnic networking.  In 1992, he would make $1 billion in a single day from currency speculation in Britain, cementing his image as a Der Sturmer cartoon villain. In 2014 Forbes reported that (((Soros))) was the 27th richest person on earth, the wealthiest hedge-fund manager, and the seventh richest person in the United States, with a net worth of $23 billion.

There’s no need to get into the specifics of what he has funded over the last twenty years with all those shekels—we know and you can find it elsewhere. But to tease  just three examples, the leaks show he tried to influence the outcome of the Sanhedrin ruling earlier this year on Obama’s executive orders regarding immigration, funded opposition research on counter-Islamic activists, and called the ongoing third world invasion of Europe “the new normal” and “an opportunity” for his organization to push its immigration agenda. What I want to focus on are his ideological concerns regarding Israel, which are a bit more complex than throwing money at anti-white and regressive left causes in Europe and the United States.

The (((OSF))) and the New Israel Fund, which receives shekels from (((Soros))), fund a Palestinian organization called Adalah. Adalah describes its mission as “work[ing] to promote and defend the rights of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, 1.2 million people, or 20% of the population, as well as Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).” If this sounds like training Palestinians to sue the Israeli government and grievance-monger it’s because it is. Adalah also has ties to the decidedly anti-zionist Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which aims to treat Israel like apartheid South Africa. The Times of Israel reported that the recent (((OSF))) leaks “show Jewish-American billionaire contributed millions to combating Jewish state’s ‘restrictive measures’ against minorities,” $10 million since 2001. An op-ed in Bloomberg titled “A Soros Plan, a Marginalized Israel” complains that “Open Society is treating Israel the way it treats autocratic countries like Russia or Iran, as an adversarial abuser of human rights. In the case of Iran though, the group has also supported Obama’s outreach to the country.” And the Washington Times reports that the (((Soros)))-backed Color of Change organization signed the Movement for Black Lives platform, which accuses Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide.”

So what’s going on here? Give his approach to issues of identity and nationalism in Europe and the United States, (((Soros))) is a staunch third worldist. If something puts Whites back and vibrants ahead, he supports it. He supports accelerationism when it comes to the third demographic transition, and as a donor to non-white Democrat causes he must obviously recognize that the coming minority-majority society is a huge boon for his politics electorally speaking. And according to the leaks, he does. As highlighted in Radix Journal:

North Carolina now has roughly nine million residents, slightly larger than the population of New York City, making it the third most populous southern state (after Texas and Florida). The state is now the nation’s tenth most populous and continues to grow. It is changing rapidly, with one third of the population now people of color and a tri-racial population dynamic – African-American, Latino, and white –replacing the Black/white dominance of old. North Carolina through the 1990s had the fastest growing immigrant population and in the 2000s had the fastest growing Latino population. This is no Mayberry (and taking TV fiction for what it is, the state likely never was Mayberry).

Black is capitalized and “white” is not. Not a mistake given the celebratory nature of the demographic shifts. But what about his anti-zionist attitude towards Israel? If (((Soros))) is really a true kayak, why is he applying third worldism to Israel? The answer may surprise you.

Reading between the lines on his Wikipedia entry (sorry, I’m lazy), I found that he was very concerned about the relationship between anti-semitism and Israel. In 2003, at a  Jewish forum in New York, Soros said:

There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies… If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly… I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world… As an unintended consequence of my actions… I also contribute to that image.

In a 2007 article for The New York Review of Books, he writes:

I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel’s policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel’s policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.

I have no doubt (((Soros))) is a true believer in third worldism and views the nationalistic Israel as a Western aggressor against people of color. This is, after all, a key talking point of the (((New Left))) that became popular during the wave of decolonization and reinforced by the anti-apartheid campaign. And those are both things he would unequivocally support. And yet, it seems quite clear to me that (((Soros))) cares a great deal about the reputation and status of Israel in the eyes of the international community, and moreover about how this reputation can influence global attitudes towards Jews. After all, Israel bills itself as a Jewish State, and considers all Jews wherever they may be in the world to be potential citizens. Even if they denounce Israel, Israel claims them as its own. There is indeed a relationship, and so the reputation of the state matters.

What makes a good state for (((Soros)))? One that promotes the most equality, democracy, and gibs to people of color. So what does he want Israel to be? A Palestinian-friendly society that just happens to have a large number of Jews, but which doesn’t seek to elevate them to the status of a prime national community at the expense of its minorities. You know, since that makes Israel look like an evil colonizer to the third-worldist international community.

So on the one hand (((Soros))) is a very consistent globalist, cosmopolitan anti-nationalist. He presents as a true social justice altruist, who seems selflessly devoted to the cause, even at the expense of his nation-state. He doesn’t like borders, he doesn’t like resistance to globalism, and he doesn’t like discriminating between categories of goyim—he wants an “open society.” But on the other hand, he is very much concerned with the ability of Jews to live in Europe or the United States without Israeli policies hung around their necks like an albatross. If Israel misbehaves too much, it ruins his ability to operate in a decreasingly pro-Israel United States and an increasingly pro-Palestine Europe. The sooner the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved in favor of the latter, the sooner it will stop being a source of anti-semitism, and a threat to overseas Israelis like (((Soros))). He might look like he’s fulfilling the Protocols, but he is doing it without Zion.

Dank meme courtesy of forum goy Boatsinker.