George Soros: NATO should serve as a tool to introduce a new world order

In 1993, George Soros wrote an essay about the use of NATO and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as tools to move the world toward a new world order—a world of “open societies.”

The world order that had prevailed since the end of the Second World War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet empire, Soros wrote in an essay in 1993 and therefore a new conceptual framework is needed to understand the current situation, one that takes into account not only relations between states but also relations within states.

The conceptual framework to which Soros referred was the concept of open and closed societies. As we all know, Soros has advocated for open societies and, to this end, in 1993 he founded the Open Society Foundations The use of the word "open" is misleading. Soros's concept of an open society is not what most people think it is, nor is it what his foundation represents.

Find here an open society is a dynamic system that promotes moral universalism. It contrasts with a closed society characterized by strict laws, moral codes, or religious doctrines. The concept of the "open society" was first coined by the French-Jewish philosopher Henri Bergson in 1932 and further developed by the Austrian-born Jewish philosopher Karl Popper during World War II. Popper saw the open society as part of a historical continuum, evolving from tribalism to a system in which tradition is critically examined and challenges less personal group relationships.

In 1993, Soros considered the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the only collective security institution that had not yet failed. He argued that NATO needed to redefine its mission to address new security threats by using its power and influence to promote open societies and combat the threats posed by closed societies (based on nationalist principles). A new kind of alliance was needed, Soros argued, and he proposed a "Partnership for Peace," which could be a separate organization from NATO, with its own structure and budget. Its primary mission would be to support states in their transformation toward open societies.

In a Twitter thread, Data Republican (small r) highlights how George Soros' 1993 essay laid out the vision for NATO and a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to lead the world toward open societies.

Today's system of non-governmental organizations is no accident—it was conceived 30 years ago by none other than George Soros in a vision. The following information is common knowledge for many. It wasn't for me. Therefore, we examine George Soros's frightening 1993 essay, "Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO» through.

The essay formulates a new mission for NATO after the Cold War. NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia—that is outdated. Instead, it would act proactively and shape other countries into "open societies."

“NATO’s new mission is best defined in terms of open and closed societies.”
Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO, Open Society Foundations, George Soros, November 1, 1993

Soros no longer defined peace and security as the absence of war, but as the number of countries that are “open societies.”

“Peace and security … depend primarily on a successful transition to an open society.”
Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO, Open Society Foundations, George Soros, November 1, 1993

In other words, NATO's new mission: If a country does not embrace Western-style capitalism and liberalism, NATO should intervene... politically, economically, and ultimately militarily.

What is an “open society”?
The term was coined by philosopher Karl Popper and expanded in this 1993 essay. Soros, of course, built a coalition of non-governmental organizations and interfered in the US elections under the banner of his "Open Society Foundation."

Here are the elements of an “open society” in theory:

• Democracy
• Free markets
• Civil rights
• Minority protection
• Transparency
• A “global” rule-based order

In practice, "open society" means something quite different. Let's review the essay.

Open Society: A government that agrees with Soros and therefore deserves to exist
Quote Soros: "The open society is based on the recognition... that participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding. The closed society is based on its denial."

Translation: You are an open society if you accept our interpretation of pluralism and Western values. Otherwise, we will label you "closed," even if your citizens elect their leaders or protect cultural traditions. And that gives us a pretext to justify military action against you.

Foreign aid is a pillar of open societies
Quote Soros: “We need, first and foremost, a constructive engagement in the transition to democratic, market-oriented, open societies.”

Translation: We pour aid into countries that are transforming themselves according to Soros's model. And no amount of money is too much to achieve that—because, again, we've redefined "peace" as "as many countries as possible following the open society model." And when aid fails, military intervention is next.

Take a moment to think about that. What do you think this means for anyone who opposes foreign aid? They are agents of the "closed society." They are a threat to national security. Ergo... they are a threat to democracy. Sound familiar?

Open societies are led by external elites, not by a country’s own citizens
Quote Soros: "[The fight against closed societies] involves building democratic states and open societies and embedding them in a structure that excludes certain behaviors."

This point is perhaps the greatest irony. A "democracy" in George Soros's sense is not determined by its own citizens. Instead, NATO's new role is to impose its own ideology on others and build countries that align with Soros.

Military interventions can transform a country into an open society
Quote Soros: “Only in case of failure is there the prospect of military intervention.”

Translation: If bribing a country with endless amounts of foreign aid doesn't work to transform it from within, then NATO will intervene. And that's exactly what NATO did in Bosnia in 1994.

The new purpose of NATO is to assimilate countries as open societies
Soros: "So if NATO has any task at all, it is to project its power and influence into the region, and this task is best defined in terms of open and closed societies."

Translation: NATO's new task is not the defense of its member states, but the expansion of its presence eastward and the active shaping of the domestic policies of its neighboring states, especially those of the post-Soviet bloc.

The open society is the model by which the Unipartei and the NGOs work
This isn't a theoretical essay. Washington has already implemented the script.

• 1994: Launch of the Partnership for Peace.
• 1999: NATO admits Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
• 2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria join.
• 2008-2022: Ukraine and Georgia seek NATO membership.
• 2023: Finland joins NATO, followed by Sweden.

Why did everyone agree to this model?
Quite simply. Enormous amounts of money are involved. Here's a list of who benefited:

• NGO networks (Open Society Foundations, USAID, NED). More influence, more contracts, more justification for expansion.
• Bureaucrats and diplomats. Career advancement through "democracy-promoting" missions.
• International donors and foundations. Steering reforms through grants.
• IMF and World Bank. Lending to reforming countries in return for austerity measures and influence.
• Private equity and multinational corporations buy up privatized industries cheaply (telecommunications, oil, infrastructure).
• Western-oriented politicians. They receive help, praise, and protection... even if they are corrupt or undemocratic.
• Post-communist oligarchs enrich themselves through Western-backed privatizations.
• Journalists and activists. Funded by Western grants, shielded from local accountability.
• Professors and think tanks receive grants and access to the media because they represent "open" values.
• Big Tech. Developing new markets after liberalization (data access, censorship tools, advertising revenue).
• Mainstream media. Shaping narratives, controlling legitimacy markers: "Reformers" vs. "rulers."

And if you dare to turn off this money tap… in other words, if you practice any kind of populist principles or try to assert your own country's ability to act: you are an enemy of democracy. Because George Soros said so!

(via Exposing The Darkness)