The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party


DisciplinaCiência Política I30.209 materiais567.672 seguidores
Pré-visualização50 páginas
in March 2006, Soros\u2019 hidden hand has been at work in many upheavals in the former Soviet bloc. But the fall of Communism did not bring an end to Soros\u2019 programs of subversion, nor seem to lessen their pace. \u201cMy foundations contributed to democratic regime change in Slovakia in 1998, Croatia in 1999, and Yugoslavia in 2000, mobilizing civil society to get rid of Vladimir Meciar, Franjo Tudjman, and Slobodan Milosevic, respectively,\u201d Soros boasts.3
In devising his strategy for these mobilizations, Soros drew on the teachings of former Harvard University political scientist Gene Sharp. Imprisoned for nine months as a conscientious objector during the Korean War, Sharp later served as secretary to A.J. Muste, a self-proclaimed Christian pacifist who had been a co-founder of the Trotskyist Workers Party of America. Sharp developed practical methods for toppling governments without resort to arms, and in several works, including The Politics of Non-violent Action and Waging Nonviolent Struggle, established himself as a leading thinker on the mechanics of regime change through direct action. He founded the Boston-based Albert Einstein Institution in 1983 to promote his direct action techniques and collaborated with Soros in orchestrating Ukraine\u2019s Orange Revolution and ousting Milosevic in the aftermath of the NATO intervention.4
The key to defeating a hostile government, Sharp taught, was to undermine its ability to fight its opponents. This was a slow process, requiring patient infiltration of strategic departments of the target government, especially the police, military and intelligence communities. By this means, the target regime could ultimately \u201cbe coerced, in the sense that their peoples, armies, and resources will no longer perform well enough to keep them in power . . .\u201d wrote Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler, two Sharp disciples, in their book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century.5
Soros\u2019 velvet revolutions closely followed Sharp\u2019s model, proceeding through steady infiltration, using humanitarian aid missions as his vehicles of choice. In a 1996 speech, Croatian president Franjo Tudjman described how this process unfolded in his country: \u201c[Soros and his allies] have spread their tentacles throughout the whole of our society. Soros . . . had approval to . . . gather and distribute humanitarian aid. . . . However, we . . . allowed them to do almost whatever they wanted. . . . They have involved in their network . . . people of all ages and classes\u2014from secondary school pupils and students to journalists, university lecturers and academics\u2014 trying to win them over by financial aid. These are people from all walks of life, from the cultural, economic, scientific, medical, legal and journalistic sphere. . . . [Their aim is] control of all spheres of life . . . setting up a state within a state. . . .\u201d6
Tudjman vowed to root out Soros\u2019 operatives, but died of stomach cancer before he could finish the purge. A Soros-approved \u201cvelvet government\u201d under President Stipe Mesic took power in January 2000.
Soros\u2019 approach to \u201cdemocratic regime change\u201d is not always particularly democratic. In Serbia, for instance, Soros\u2019 protesters filled the streets of Belgrade to halt an election that was still in progress. The vote was close enough that Yugoslav law required a runoff election. But the activists of \u201cOtpor\u201d\u2014a 70,000-member militant youth group that Soros had bankrolled\u2014did not wait for the second vote. Yugoslavia\u2019s velvet revolution began on Election Day, 26 September 2000. Candidate Vojislav Kostunovic won 48.9 percent of the vote to Milosevic\u2019s 38.6 percent. However, Yugoslav law requires a 50 percent plurality to win. A run-off election was duly scheduled for 8 October, but Kostunovic refused to participate, citing exit polls that contradicted the official results.7 In fact, both sides had engaged in ballot-stuffing, according to the respected British intelligence bulletin Jane\u2019s Sentinel.8 Nevertheless, Soros-sponsored media noticed only Milosevic\u2019s vote-rigging and called for his resignation. Kostunovic demanded that Milosevic step down.9
Otpor activists gave lip service to the code of non-violence. Yet, when they staged their coup on 5 October 2000, many relied not on Kumbaya sing-alongs, but on fists, boots, guns and Molotov cocktails.10 On 5 October, revolutionaries rioted in Belgrade, setting fire to the Federal Parliament Building and the headquarters of the state television network RTS.11Janes\u2019 Sentinel reports that Otpor-led units armed with AK-47s, mortars and shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons set up road-blocks around Belgrade.12 At the same time, Otpor activists went out of their way to calm Serb police and, wherever possible, win their sympathy and support. This was in keeping with the teachings of Gene Sharp, whose treatise, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Otpor leaders adapted into a short, Serbian-language Otpor User Manual distributed to their activists. In an admiring account of the coup, the New Republic wrote, \u201cOtpor, after all, had launched the blood- less revolution par excellence\u2014a combination of clever marketing and deft courtship of the Serbian police. . . . They had intentionally scattered their followers across Yugoslavia\u2019s provinces, not confining them to metropolises like Belgrade and Novi Sad. That way, the regime couldn\u2019t easily stamp them out. And they had heeded Sharp\u2019s chief injunction: They had cultivated the police and military. Otpor sent flowers to soldiers. Every demonstration used humor to convince police it meant them no physical harm. As [Sharp disciples] Ackerman and DuVall wrote in a recent op-ed, \u2018Regimes fall when their defenders defect.\u2019\u201d13
Otpor\u2019s bold tactics convinced Milosevic that a long and bloody struggle lay ahead. Rather than risk civil war or NATO intervention, Milosevic stepped down. The deposed president was arrested and packed off to Holland for trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. According to British journalist Neil Clark, Soros spent nine years laying the groundwork for the coup, during which time he supplied over $100 million to the Serb resistance. Clark wrote in the New Statesman: \u201cFrom 1991, his Open Society Institute channeled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and \u2018independent\u2019media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world\u2019s richest men. . . .\u201d14
Soros and his operatives freely admit that they helped fund and organize the anti-Milosevic activists, including the radical Otpor organization whose role proved decisive in the coup. \u201cWe were here to support the civil sector\u2014the people who were fighting against the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. . . . Most of our work was undercover,\u201d said Velimir Curgus to the Los Angeles Times.15 Curgus is an operative of the Soros Foundation Networks. During the insurgency against Milosevic, he was attached to Soros\u2019 Fund for an Open Society-Yugoslavia.
Soros\u2019 next exercise in \u201cdemocratic regime change\u201d occurred in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. When Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze\u2014himself a figure in Russia\u2019s democratic revolution\u2014rebuked Soros in mid-2002 for meddling in local politics, Soros, speaking at a Moscow press conference, bluntly warned him that his presidency hung by a thread. At the conference, Soros floated the idea that Shevardnadze might try to rig Georgia\u2019s 2003 elections. Soros vowed that he would \u201cmobilize civil society\u201d to thwart any vote tampering. \u201cIt is necessary to mobilize civil society in order to assure free and fair elections,\u201d Soros said. \u201cThis is what we did in Slovakia at the time of Meciar, in Croatia at the time of Tudjman and in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic.\u201d 16
Soros made good on his threat. A newspaper story in Britain\u2019s Globe and Mail summarized the