"In an article published by the newspaper Die Welt, the 91-year-old investor and philanthropist speaks of a systemic issue fueled by the race for supremacy in artificial intelligence."
The "Welt" refers to a "guest article" by Soros, suggesting that Soros wrote the article exclusively for the Welt. Der Spiegel" is sounding the same horn and reports favorably about the publication in "Die Welt". What could be suspicious about it?
The article by Soros was not written for the "Welt", which Spiegel also knows, but it does not link to the original article (or even the real original, more on that in a moment) but to the article in the "Welt". "Guest article" sounds better than if "Welt", Spiegel and all the other German "quality media" that are now thematizing this "guest article" would write that they are nothing more than parts of a propaganda campaign by Soros and that they give him a benevolent hand in it.
This sounds exaggerated to you? Then let’s take a look at the story of this "guest post" together.
The speech of Soros
That the article in the "Welt" is by no means a guest contribution by Soros becomes clear when one knows where the text comes from. George Soros spoke Monday at the opening of the forum "China on the Eve of the Winter Olympics: Tough Choices for the World’s Democracies" at the Hoover Institution, delivering an opening address. What the "Welt" sells to its readers as a "guest article" by George Soros is the speech manuscript of this opening speech and not a guest article written by George Soros for the "Welt".
The Hoover Institution is one of the most powerful think tanks in the U.S., one of the hawks among U.S. elites and currently headed by Condoleezza Rice. It is therefore hardly surprising that people are concerned about China, which the USA now considers to be its most important enemy. Soros blatantly called for regime change in China in his speech, which "Die Welt" sells to its readers as a "guest article".
Exposing are the reasons Soros gives for it.
It’s all about power
Soros’s speech is an example of textbook propaganda, which of course included the inevitable Nazi comparison, equating the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics with the 1936 Berlin Olympics. That Soros – despite all the fine words in his speech – is not concerned with human rights or "open societies" becomes clear when he gets to the real reasons for the American action against China:
"When I started what I call my political philanthropy in the 1980s, American superiority was not in question. This is no longer the case today. Why?"
It is not about human rights, democracy or similar slogans, with which one justifies before the "stupid masses" all the conflicts in the world, which the USA has broken off in the last 20 years, it is quite banally about geopolitics, more exactly, it is about the fact that the USA has lost the world domination (in the USA called "worldwide dominance"), which was already believed to be safe. China has become too strong and disturbs the US elites’ hunger for power and money. Unfortunately, it is as banal as that and it is said quite openly.
In today’s world, personal data is power. When Western oligarchs and corporations like Facebook, Google, Bill Gates (see ID2020) and others collect personal data, it is presented to us as something good. But if the state of China (far less excessively than Western internet corporations, by the way) is collecting personal data, then that’s bad and sounds like George Soros:
"Given these advantages, one might think that Xi Jinping, who has been more aggressive than any other ruler in history in collecting personal data to monitor his citizens, is bound to succeed."
Soros is not concerned with introducing democracy, human rights and an "open society" in China (if he were concerned with that, he would have to become active in Saudi Arabia, for example), it is simply that Soros is offended by the fact that China is a competitor in the collection of personal data. (I should explain how important personal data has become in a separate article sometime)
As a result, Soros calls for regime change in China at the end of his nearly 20-minute speech:
"It is to be hoped that Xi Jinping will be replaced by someone less repressive at home and more peaceful abroad. This would remove the biggest threat open societies face today, and they should do everything in their power to encourage China to move in the desired direction."
So it is quite openly about making China "to move in the desired direction" and one should not let the well-sounding slogans about an "open society" pull the wool over one’s eyes: It is quite banally all about money and power.
The role of the media
The Western "quality media" do not see it as their task to disseminate these simple truths. Instead, they – like Der Spiegel, for example – adopt Soros’ formulations completely uncritically and spread them like a new gospel. Or they do it like the "Welt" and print the speech in full length and call it a "guest article" by Soros.
The media do not (any longer) see their role in watching the fingers of the rich and powerful, they now openly see themselves as the mouthpieces of the rich and powerful, as this example once again points out. Why this is so, I have explained in my book "Dependently Employed" and in my book "Inside Corona" I have used the example of the pandemic to show how this works in practice. That I mention my books here is not meant as an advertisement, the point is that this is a very complex system that can only be touched on in one article, but not fully explained. To really understand this, you actually have to read a book.
Soros’ speech, which is sold to us by the "quality media" as a "guest article", shows one of the many examples mentioned in the books of how this works. And now let’s take a look at this example.
Power over the media
Regular readers of the Anti-Spiegel already know Project Syndicate. Project Syndicate was founded by Soros in the early 1990s to give him more influence over public opinion. And he is concerned with nothing less than global public opinion. Project Syndicate writes about itself:
"Project Syndicate produces and delivers high-quality commentary to a global audience of. With exclusive contributions from prominent political leaders, politicians, academics, business leaders and civic activists from around the world, we provide news media and their readers with cutting-edge analysis and insight, regardless of ability to pay. Our membership includes over 500 media outlets – more than half of which receive our commentaries for free or at subsidized rates – in 156 countries."
What sounds so positive and altruistic means nothing else than that the Syndicate wants to influence what people in 156 countries discuss and how they think about certain issues. One does not want less, than to influence the world-wide public opinion and sells this as "charitable work."
The Gleichschaltung of the media
As expected, Project Syndicate has published the text of Soros’ speech as an article. And if you now also know that the German "quality media" are among the 500 members of Project Syndicate, then you know that also Der Spiegel could have published Soros’ speech as a "guest article", instead of just reporting about Soros’ "guest article" in "Die Welt".
Der Spiegel used to do that as well, as I pointed out in June 2021. At the time, Der Spiegel published a "guest article" jointly written by the heads of the WHO, World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund, advocating that (Western) countries should pony up $50 billion for Covid-19 vaccines. Also, the article originally came from Project Syndicate.
At that time the role distributions were different, at that time Der Spiegel published the "guest article" and the other "quality media" reported benevolently about the "guest article" in Der Spiegel instead of publishing it themselves. This time the "Welt" has published the "guest article" from Project Syndicate and the other "quality media" are reporting benevolently about it.
Can one show more clearly, how the (German) media are meanwhile switched to the same direction?? They all could have published the text of Soros’ speech, which Project Syndicate posted online, as an article. But strangely enough, only one medium ever publishes the article, which gives the impression that it was written exclusively for that medium, and the others report on it. How does this work, assuming that the "quality media" operate independently of each other? Such an excellent coordination must be agreed upon, or how do the "quality media" know who should publish so that others report positively about it??
And, of course, it is never mentioned where the "guest articles" come from. You never read a word from Project Syndicate, which is obviously steering the reporting of the supposedly so independent German "quality media" in this case. Why, for example, does Der Spiegel not mention that it is not a "guest article" by Soros for "Die Welt", but the text of his opening speech at a meeting of the hardcore hawks of US politics, the text of which can be found on Soros’ site and on Project Syndicate’s site?
Worldwide propaganda campaigns
In both cases, i.e. the "guest article" in Der Spiegel in June 2021 and the present "guest article" by Soros in Die Welt, we are dealing with a worldwide propaganda campaign, because transatlantic media in 156 countries have picked up these articles and all pretend to have received an exclusive guest article from Soros or the heads of WHO, World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund.
These and many other similar examples of Project Syndicate are orchestrated, worldwide propaganda campaigns for the goals of Soros and the other financiers of Project Syndicate, which by the way also include Bill Gates. But the allegedly objective critical and independent "quality media" do not uncover these controlled propaganda campaigns, no, instead they take part in them and obviously also agree on who is allowed to publish the (allegedly exclusive) "guest article" written by a member of the global elites, and who reports positively about it afterwards.
However, anyone who claims that the "quality media" are homophobic is, of course, a conspiracy theorist.