It’s one thing to talk about remittances being sent abroad, but where is it going? A quick look at the top recipients shows an unsurprising result. The largest amounts of money are sent to places which bring the most people to Canada annually. This has China, India and the Philippines at the top of the list.
The exact formula for these projections isn’t released, but it’s likely due to limited surveys, information from financial institutions and organizations, and some extrapolation. The numbers can’t be taken as exact, but just a rough idea of what’s going on. StatsCan also has its own estimates.
*Indicates not all transactions between certain countries can be estimated.
Pew Research is just one group that tracks and estimates remittances by country in a particular year. They put that figure for money leaving Canada in 2017 to be about $24.6 billion. To be fair, these are calculated to a large degree by computer modelling, so take it with a grain of salt. Still, it’s a starting place to look.
Pew and the World Bank openly admit that remittances are used by many countries to prop up their economies to a large degree.
Now, an argument “could” be made that these remittances have an overall benefit globally, and there’s the poverty reduction aspect. But in that case, public officials should just be honest about it, and not pretend that the aim is all to benefit the host country.
The United States is believed to be the largest source of remittances, with about $150 billion sent abroad annually.
The World Bank has written in opposition to the idea of taxing remittances. They openly admit that it would significantly cut into the amount of money the destination country receives.
There’s more to it than simply sending money abroad. Keep in mind, restaurants and hotels are among the largest users of programs like for Temporary Foreign Workers. For the last 2 years, they have been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. Chains are included in this list as well.
As for agriculture workers, Ottawa has been using public money to subsidize the quarantine costs of people entering the country. Now, we’re not going to actually stop the entry of people coming in during a “deadly pandemic”, with high unemployment levels. The Government will just use tax dollars to offset a financial burden imposed on employers.
Why would businesses be supporting these programs for all these years? It’s economical to. Simply put, increasing the supply of labour drives down the relative value, or wages. Also, it’s much easier to support a family in a country with a lower cost of living, even with the remittance fees.
Anyhow, just something to think about when it’s reported that we need more and more people to come here. There are other factors at play.
This piece on the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a continuation of the last one. Now, let’s look a little more into who’s doing this, and what they actually want.
This may seem a bit ironic (or stupid), doing open source intelligence gathering on an intelligence gathering outlet. Nonetheless, the public does need to be aware of what is going on.
According to its latest tax return, the ISD took in about 5.6 million British Pounds, almost exclusively from “charitable” sources. That also describes the bulk of their spending. Perhaps the Government funding is simply classified as charities, or is being funneled through them
If you think these people aren’t monitoring what you post, and using it as evidence in their reports, consider some of their profiles. All of this information came directly from them.
In its Twitter biography, the ISD describes itself as “fiercely independent”. This is downright disingenuous, considering the partners it works with, and the sources of its funding. This is no more independent than the heavily subsidized media outlets that are everywhere in Canada. See the bottom links for more details.
Kata Balint is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, primarily working on the analysis of the climate change debate in Hungary, using digital analysis tools and open source intelligence methods. Kata’s main areas of research are political radicalisation and extremism, with a focus on far-right groups and movements; disinformation and conspiracy theories; and political attitudes and behaviour. Kata previously worked as an Analyst in the Radicalisation and Extremism Programme of Political Capital, an independent research institute based in Hungary, where she co-authored a number of research papers and was involved in radicalisation prevention activities. She gained her first professional experiences working in the Office of the Hungarian Parliament and in the European Parliament. Kata completed her postgraduate studies in Political Psychology at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK, and she holds an undergraduate degree in Social Sciences with majors in International Studies and Communication from Roskilde University, Denmark.
Chloe Colliver is Head of Digital Policy and Strategy at ISD, where she leads a global team of analysts studying disinformation and extremism online, including programmes of work focusing on the German, European Parliamentary, UK, Swedish and US Elections. She has worked on the development of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and has provided expert testimony to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee, the Swedish, New Zealand, Canadian, French and German governments on digital policy and tech regulation. She has been featured at CNN, the BBC, Sky News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Wired and Bloomberg. She is the co-author of ISD reports Spin Cycle: Information Laundering on Facebook, Developing a Civil Society Response to Online Manipulation, The 101 of Disinformation Detection, Click Here For Outrage: Disinformation in the European Parliamentary Elections 2019, The First 100 Days: Coronavirus and Crisis Management on Social Media Platforms, and Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Chloe is a Yale Mellon Fellow and sits on the Advisory Board for Accountable Tech.
Milo Comerford is Head of Policy & Research, Counter Extremism, leading ISD’s work developing innovative research approaches and policy responses to extremism. Milo regularly briefs senior decision makers around the world on the challenge posed by extremist ideologies, and advises governments and international agencies on building effective strategies for countering extremism. He was previously Senior Analyst at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where he led major research projects on Salafi-jihadi propaganda, international educational responses to extremism, and the transnational far right. His writing and research features frequently in international media and he has made recent broadcast appearances on BBC News, Sky News and Al Jazeera.
Jiore Craig is the Head of Political Integrity and Digital Communication at ISD. She has extensive international experience, previously spending eight years helping elected officials, political leaders, media organisations, academic institutions and civic society organisations across five continents to measure the impact of digital communication and influence campaigns on public opinion and communicate effectively in the wake of the threat of disinformation around elections. She was previously a Vice President at a global political consulting firm, where she built a digital practice serving Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the US. Jiore’s work informed the design of major coalition efforts to counter disinformation in the 2020 US and 2019 European Parliament elections. Her work is cited in The Washington Post, New York Magazine, The L.A. Times, The New Yorker, and she has been a featured guest on the election podcast, Pod Save America.
Jacob Davey is Head of Research & Policy of Far-right and Hate Movements. His research focuses on the role of digital communications in inter-communal conflict, internet culture, online hate speech and the international far-right. He has led a number of projects piloting novel models for identifying extremist conversation online as well as interventions to counter this phenomenon. He has advised national and local policymakers on right-wing extremism, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, and has lead trainings with frontline practitioners on the mobilisation strategies of extremist groups. He has provided commentary on extremism-related issues in a number of platforms including The Guardian, The Independent, and The BBC, and also sits as a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. He is the co-author of ISD reports Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, The Interplay Between Australia’s Political Fringes on the Right and Left: Online Messaging on Facebook, The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram, An Online Environmental Scan of Right-wing Extremism in Canada, The Fringe Insurgency – Connectivity, Convergence and Mainstreaming of the Extreme Right, Counter-Conversations: A model for direct engagement with individuals showing signs of radicalisation online, “Mainstreaming Mussolini” – How the Extreme Right Attempted to ‘Make Italy Great Again’ in the 2018 Italian Election, ‘The Great Replacement’: The Violent Consequences of Mainstreamed Extremism, and An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists.
Jasmine El-Gamal is a Senior Manager for Africa, Middle East and Asia (AMEA) at ISD, where she is responsible for overseeing prevention of violent extremism (PVE) research and programming. From 2015-2020, Jasmine was a Senior Fellow with the Middle East program at the Atlantic Council, where she focused primarily on U.S. policies in the Middle East. From 2013-2015, Jasmine served as a Special Assistant to three consecutive Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, where she advised on national security issues. From 2008-2013, Jasmine served as a Middle East advisor at the Pentagon, where she served three Secretaries of Defense. During her tenure, she prepared and staffed the Secretary of Defense on foreign trips and during Congressional briefings. She covered issues related to Iraq, Syria, the Arab Spring and ISIS, among others, and served as the Acting Chief of Staff for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. From 2014-2016, Jasmine served as a translator and cultural advisor to the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where she provided briefings on Islam and Arab culture to incoming military officers in advance of their participation on the Review Boards. She conducted over 100 detainee interviews during her time at GTMO regarding their background and journey to Afghanistan and ensured the integrity of their testimony during their review boards, many of which resulted in the illumination of their unjust detention. In 2003, Jasmine served as a translator with a U.S. Civil Affairs team responsible for reconstruction in Southern Iraq, helping to facilitate communication and cooperation between U.S. forces and the local population in rebuilding the area. Her commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, Newsweek, Time Magazine, CNN, Al Jazeera, Al Hurra, L’Orient du Jour, Sawt al Azhar, Al Masry Al Youm and other international outlets.
Aoife Gallagher is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, focusing on the intersection between far-right extremism, disinformation and conspiracy theories and using a mixture of data analysis, open source intelligence and investigative techniques to understand the online ecosystem where these ideas flourish and spread. Previously, Aoife was a journalist with the online news agency, Storyful. She is co-author of the ISD reports The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory and Profit and Protest: How Facebook is struggling to enforce limits on ads spreading hate, lies and scams about the Black Lives Matter protests. Aoife has completed an MA in Journalism.
Cooper Gatewood is a Senior Digital Research Manager within ISD’s Digital Research Unit, focusing on quantitative research into the spread of hateful and polarising narratives online, and how they are leveraged by extremist actors. Cooper is currently contributing to ISD’s research on disinformation campaigns, particularly those aimed to influence and disrupt election processes. He also manages on the Online Civil Courage Initiative in France, coordinating activities to support civil society’s response to hate and extremism online. In addition, Cooper conducts ongoing evaluation of a number of ISD’s programmes, including Be Internet Citizens and Young Digital Leaders. Cooper also develops monitoring and evaluation frameworks for a number of ISD’s education projects. Previously, Cooper worked at Portland, where he advised clients from the non-profit and government sectors on their media engagement and social media strategies. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook, La pandémie de COVID-19: terreau fertile de la haine en ligne, Fostering Civic Responses to Online Harms, Promouvoir le civisme en ligne face aux malveillances à l’ère du numérique, Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud, Mapping hate in France: A panoramic view of online discourse, and Building Digital Citizenship in France: Lessons from the Sens Critique project. Cooper holds a Masters of International Affairs from Columbia University and a Masters of International Security from Sciences Po and is fluent in Spanish and French, as well as speaking proficient Japanese.
Jakob Guhl is a Manager at ISD, where he works within the Digital Research Unit and with ISD Germany. His research focuses on the far-right, Islamist extremism, hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. He is a frequent commentator on German radio and broadcast, including Deutschlandfunk, Tagesthemen, NDR and Radio Eins. Jakob has been invited to present his research about online hate to the German Ministry of the Justice and provided evidence to the German Minister of the Interior and the German Family Minister on how to strengthen prevention against right-wing extremism and antisemitism. His research has been featured in Die Zeit, The Guardian, DW, The Telegraph, CNN, Euronews, Coda Story, Vice, Politico, New Republic and Die Welt, among others. Additionally, he has published articles in the “Journal for Deradicalisation”, “Demokratie gegen Menschenfeindlichkeit”, Taz, Der Standard, GNET and co-authored an essay for an edited volume of the Munich Residence Theatre about the origins of contemporary political anger. He is the co-author of ISD reports Crisis and Loss of Control: German-Language Digital Extremism in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram and The Online Ecosystem of the German Far-Right. Jakob holds an MA in Terrorism, Security and Society from King’s College London.
Sasha Havlicek is Co-Founder and CEO of ISD, having spearheaded ISD’s pioneering research and data analysis, digital education, policy advisory, training, tech and communications programmes. With a background in conflict resolution and an expertise in extremism, digital information operations and electoral interference, she has advised a range of governments at the highest levels and has spearheaded partnerships with the UN, EU Commission and Global Counter-Terrorism Forum. She has also worked with the private and civil society sectors to promote innovation, including developing major programmes run in partnership with Google, FB and Microsoft. Sasha serves as an expert advisor to the UK Counter-Extremism Commission and the Mayor of London’s counter-extremism programme, and is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Sasha previously served as Senior Director at the EastWest Institute where she led conflict resolution programming. Sasha has testified before US Congress, the UK Parliament and is a regular commentator in the media (CNN, BBC, Channel 4 News and other networks).
Jennie King is a Senior Policy Manager at ISD. She supports programme design, policy outreach and strategy across the organisation. Jennie previously served as MENA Regional Director Arts, Assistant Country Director Egypt and Co-Director Hungary for the British Council, the UK’s international body for cultural relations. She also served as an Attaché for the Guatemalan Diplomatic Mission. She is the co-author of the ISD report Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Jennie read Arabic and Spanish at Pembroke College, Cambridge, receiving a Foundation Scholarship and the Marie Shamma’a Frost Prize for Oriental Studies.
Daniel Maki is a Senior Manager in charge of open-source intelligence (OSINT) research for ISD’s Digital Research Unit, as well as serving as ISD’s Digital Risk Officer. Daniel leads a team of practitioners in the collection and analysis of intelligence related to investigations, ethnographic research, crisis response, and security monitoring. He also regularly serves as a subject-matter expert in intelligence collection and analysis within ISD and on behalf of ISD’s key partners. As ISD’s Digital Risk Officer, Daniel is responsible for tackling emerging digital risks and identifying operational security threats encountered in the course of research projects and investigations. Daniel has worked in the intelligence community for ten years as an investigator and intelligence analyst, conducting investigations into a wide variety of matters, including financial crime, insider threats, counterintelligence, espionage, organized crime and corruption, workplace misconduct, cybercrime, terrorism, and geopolitical conflict.
Ciaran O’Connor is an Analyst at ISD, working in the Research and Policy unit. Ciaran specialises in using open-source research to track and monitor disinformation and extremism online, with a particular focus on far-right activity and communication across open and closed networks and platforms. Ciaran is currently working on multiple ISD projects in analysing the intersection of misinformation and extremism with COVID-19 on social media. Ciaran previously worked as a journalist on the investigations team at Storyful, a social media news agency that specialises in the verification and analysis of amateur footage and misinformation online. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook and Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud.
Christian Schwieter is a Project Manager at ISD Germany, leading the German-language research project on far-right activity on alternative and emerging online platforms. At ISD, Christian also co-led the pilot phase of the Digital Policy Lab, a new intergovernmental working group focused on charting the online policy path forward to prevent and counter disinformation, hate speech and extremism. Previously, Christian worked as a researcher for the Computational Propaganda Project at the Oxford Internet Institute, where he co-authored reports on state-backed information operations relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2019, Christian was the Specialist Adviser on Disinformation Matters for the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee at the House of Commons. Christian holds an MSc in Social Science of the Internet from the University of Oxford and a BA from Leiden University College The Hague.
Henry Tuck is Head of Policy & Programmes at ISD for work across Europe and the Five Eyes countries. He is responsible for the overall management of the Institute’s research programme, including oversight of all publications, research methods, and ethics across a variety of topics, from disinformation to the far-right and extremism online. Henry also leads ISD’s policy-focused work to counter online harms in collaboration with a range of key stakeholders, advising leading governments, international organisations and major private sector tech companies. He is the co-author of ISD reports An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists, The Counter-Narrative Monitoring & Evaluation Handbook, Shooting in the right direction: Anti-ISIS Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq, and The Counter-narrative Handbook. Henry holds a Masters in International Conflict Studies from Kings College London, and a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Durham University.
Several profiles actually refer to “open source intelligence gathering”. Do you realize what this means? Online posts and comments are being tracked, documented, archived, and used for later research. It’s no surprise that so many have ties to Governments around the world, and that they appear as “experts” in the mainstream media quite often. This is (one of) the groups being paid to push certain narratives.
The ISD promotes the work of Marianna Spring, who does “anti-misinformation” efforts on behalf of the Gates-funded British Broadcasting Corporation.
The ISD has teamed up with social media influencers to “manage the narrative” around the latest climate change conference in the U.K. Obviously, the lay people are too dumb to think for themselves, and must be told what to believe.
ISD has also written about how Facebook can be more effective at enforcing the bans of people already removed from the network. Considering that Facebook is a major donor and partner, this isn’t nefarious, or any sort of conflict of interest. They’re also going after Tik Tok.
Apparently, the rapid demographic changes in Western countries since the 1960s just happened. There wasn’t any concerted “replacement agenda“, according to the report from ISD. It’s just some racist conspiracy theory that gets thrown around.
By the way, if you need money and lack much of a soul, the ISD is currency hiring for a few different positions. Apply today!
On a more serious note: these people are doing “open source intelligence gathering”, which means that content being posted is being used for other purposes. There is an agenda here, so truth and source material may not matter, nor would context. In a similar vein, edgy and trolling posts may be taken at face value and used to push certain narratives, like here. It’s not your friends or family you need to worry about, but think tank operatives.
Ever get the impression that Governments are colluding with social media and NGOs in a program of counter-intelligence? Ever think that there may be a coordinated effort to keep the general public oblivious to what’s really going on in the world? Turns out, there may be something to that.
Credit where it’s due: Stormhaven Media previously addressed the ISD, and some of its nefarious connections. Go check that out for more context.
The Canadian Government briefly mentions the work done by ISD in their group: Rapid Response Mechanism Canada (RRM Canada). This was related to foreign interference during and leading up to the 2019 European Union Parliamentary Elections. ISD is specifically listed in footnote #3.
On that page, there was also concern that anti-abortion sentiments were rising as a result of the language used. In short, calling things what they were amounted to resistance to the pro-death agenga. Also, Ottawa seemed to realize that people were getting wise to globalism and to the prospects of a Muslim takeover. Having a narrative shift makes it harder to sell Government policies.
A program run by Public Service Canada involved implementing the agenda of preventing violent extremism into Canadian schools. Parents, did you know about this?
Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)
This project builds on a long-standing international program, first launched in 2015 through support from Public Safety Canada, designed to give young people the resources to challenge violent extremism in all its forms. Extreme Dialogue is a free resource designed to be delivered by teachers, youth practitioners, external facilitators (including social services and police), or young people themselves, by using films and supporting curriculum materials to learn about the true stories of those affected by violent extremism.
.
This new investment will support bringing the program to approximately 2,000 students between the ages of 14-20 in eight different francophone high schools and CEGEP/colleges in Quebec, and will deliver new and adapted education material and workshops for students, delivered by teachers and practitioners. Teachers and practitioners will be equipped through training delivered by the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRLV).
.
Ultimately, this project aims to build resilience to radicalization leading to violence in youth by providing them with the knowledge, skills and values needed not only to openly discuss, but to also challenge extremism in schools and other settings within their community.
Did parents know that the Federal Government was implementing into their schools the same kind of training that is given to those “peaceful groups” to ensure they don’t commit mass murder? Maybe not letting such people into Canada in the first place would have been a better idea. Perhaps this is done to subconsciously shift the public opinion that this sort of thing should be considered normal. But then, objecting to the forced integration of vastly different groups is probably racist, or something.
Canada also has a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, or CCRS, It’s chaired by Amarnath Amarasingam, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue
In 2013, Public Safety Canada gave ISD $24,372.98 in a sole-sourced contract to “counter violent extremism”. However, the details of this contract were extremely sparse, so we are left to guess about what it actually involved.
Last year, Canadian taxpayers forked over nearly $400,000 to this “independent” group. Seems like an unproductive use of money. But then, it’s hardly the only time we’ve financed our own brainwashing. See the links at the bottom for worse examples of this.
It’s a registered tax-exempt organization in the United States, so more information about its finances is available from the Internal Revenue Service.
Of course, it’s hardly just the Canadian Government (or rather, taxpayers) who are financing this organization. Looking through their website, it’s easy to find the full list of donors and partners. And wow, what a list of organizations this is.
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue US (ISD US) is a non-political, not-for-profit corporation registered in the District of Columbia with 501(c)(3) status. It was formed with Articles of Incorporation on 19 August 2009. Whilst the two entities are legally separate, a majority of Board members sit on both boards so that decisions can be taken collectively. You can search for ISD US using tax identification number 27-1282489.
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue gGmbH (ISD Germany) is registered with the companies’ registrar in Berlin, registration AG Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 207 328B. It was formed on 19 February 2019 with a Deed and Articles of Association and began operations in 2020. The Managing Directors are Huberta von Voss and Sarah Kennedy.
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue France (ISD France) is a legal entity under the status of Association de loi 1901, a status granted to not-for-profit organisations across a range of sectors.
PARTNERS
INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
ARENA @ Johns Hopkins University
Cardiff University
Centre for the Analysis of Social Media (CASM)
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
Deakin University
Demos
Fair Fight Action
Geneva Center for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
German Marshall Fund Alliance for Securing Democracy
Global Center on Cooperative Security
Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)
Global Disinformation Index
Hans-Bredow Institute
Harvard Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society
Institut Montaigne
Institute for Economics and Peace
McCain Institute
MIT Media Cloud
Ontario Tech University
Sussex University Computer Science Department
United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (UNCTED)
Victoria University
West Asia-North Africa (WANA) Institute
FUNDERS (2018-PRESENT)
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
British Council
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF)
Europäisches Forum Alpbach
Gemeinnützige Hertie Stiftung
Gen Next Foundation
Hirondelle Foundation
International Republican Institute (IRI)
Mercator Stiftung Germany
Mercator Stiftung Switzerland
National Democratic Institute
Omidyar Group
Open Society Foundations
Robert Bosch Stiftung
United States Institute for Peace
Governments & Multilateral Organisations
Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and trade (DFAT)
Australian Department for Home Affairs
Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST)
Council of Europe
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration
Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria, Australia
Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Dutch Ministry of the Interior
European Commission
Finnish Interior Ministry
German Federal Agency for Civic Engagement
German Federal Foreign Office (Auswaertiges-Amt)
German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV)
Global Affairs Canada
Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)
Ministry of Justice and Security, The Netherlands
New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)
Norwegian Ministry of Children & Families (MCF)
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security
Public Safety Canada
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
Swedish Ministry of Integration
Swedish Ministry of Justice
Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)
UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)
UK Home Office
UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
US Department for Homeland Security (DHS)
US State Department
Private Sector
Audible
Facebook
GIFCT
Google
Google.org
Jigsaw
Microsoft
YouTube
Now, just because the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is financed by numerous Western Governments, social media companies, think tanks, and NGOs like the Open Society and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there’s no reason to be concerned. It’s not like there is any ideology that prevents truth and objective analysis from being published.
It’s hardly surprising that the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Open Society are claiming that racism and hate are on the rise. When NGOs are pushing open borders policies, it tends to provoke considerable backlash.
ISD lists conditions it imposes for any donations that are offered. While they sound fine on the surface, it needs to be said that it will only take money from groups who are on board with its ideology.
(1) The funder demonstrates respect for and adherence to universal human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law, and does not support or condone extremism or terrorism
(2) The funder does not conduct activities or implement policies that promote violence, hatred or prejudice on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age or disability, and does not seek to deflect criticism from their involvement in any of the above by funding ISD
(3) The funding will help to challenge extremism, polarisation and disinformation and will support ISD in its pursuit of its charitable objectives
(4) The funder does not attempt to influence ISD’s objectives, policies or decisions, and the funding does not pose a risk to ISD’s independence, either explicitly or implicitly
(5) The funding does not pose a risk of harm to ISD’s reputation, staff, partners or beneficiaries
If one questions of the replacement agenda is real (getting rid of whites in the West), the climate change narrative, the pandemic fear-porn, or censorship in general, ISD will not take money. Rather than foster any true debate or research, it seems that all this group wants is an echo chamber.
Never forget, the Canadian Government has openly talked about passing laws to combat what they call “pandemic misinformation”. While that may be a hard sell, this may be the next best thing, from their perspective.
Now, let’s see the ISD findings in action. Let’s see some fairly mainstream coverage which references the work ISD does. Surely, it will be fully transparent in all of this.
Irish far-right groups have been exploiting online loopholes and using encrypted and largely unmoderated social media sites and messaging apps to mobilise and spread messages of hate throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
.
That’s according to research carried out by the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD), an independent global organisation dedicated to powering solutions to extremism, hate, and disinformation.
.
The study showed that the number of channels and messages created and sent by Irish users of the encrypted messaging app Telegram has increased rapidly, with just 800 messages sent in 2019 compared with over 60,000 this past January.
As just one example of propaganda, the Irish Examiner refers to the ISD as an “independent” organization. Any due diligence would have found out who really funds this group. Pretty hard to be independent when Governments and interested parties are paying the bills.
It’s entirely possible this omission was due to sloppy writing. However, it appears far more likely that this author simply chose to ignore the truth about the ISD, in an attempt to mislead and deceive readers. Looking at his LinkedIn profile suggests willful omissions, as he has a Masters in journalism. He probably should have stuck with being an English teacher.
Don’t worry, the Government is isn’t involved in gaslighting, brainwashing, or otherwise dumbing down the population in order for them to be more compliant. Politicians don’t really get their hands dirty like this. They just pay other people to do it.
The United Kingdom is apparently about to incorporate the climate change agenda into nearly every aspect of public education. This is according to a paper released recently by the Government.
While the language sounds all lofty and altruistic, this comes across as a combination of propaganda mixed with child abuse. Terrorizing kids into believing the world is coming to an end is sick and cruel.
In fairness: this is still just a draft. However, it’s pretty disturbing that such things are being seriously discussed.
[Page 5] Context
This strategy sets out ambitious activity to respond to recommendations for education from the Committee for Climate Change, the Dasgupta Review, Green Jobs Taskforce report and supports the delivery of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and Net Zero Strategy. It includes how we will work in the context of:
• The Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius and includes measures relating to climate change education
• UK Government legislation to meet net zero by 2050. To achieve this, the UK is the first country to set legally binding carbon budgets, placing a restriction on the total amount of greenhouse gases the UK can emit over a five-year period. In the latest, Carbon Budget 6, the UK legislated to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
• UNESCO’s ‘ESD for 2030’ (Education for Sustainable Development) which sets out the key role of education in the successful achievement of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
• The Environment Bill which will deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country and drive forward action to protect nature and improve biodiversity, including through a target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature.
.
The UK requires the education sector to play its role in positively responding to climate change and inspiring action on an international stage.
If nothing else, the honesty is refreshing. The UK Government sees the “education” sector as vital in pushing the climate change narrative, achieving the Paris Agreement goals, and other environmental aspirations. The youth must be indoctrinated into accepting these goals.
[Page 12] Schools play an important role in preparing pupils for life in modern Britain and to become active citizens, whilst remaining politically impartial. Legal duties in this area help to ensure that pupils are allowed to form their own independent opinions on political issues that may define their future, without being influenced by the personal views of those teaching them.
. Teaching about climate change and the scientific facts and evidence behind this, does not constitute teaching about a political issue and schools do not need to present misinformation or unsubstantiated claims to provide balance. However, in climate education there may be relevant political issues and partisan political views, for example on social and economic reform, that should be handled in line with schools legal duties on political impartiality. Importantly, whilst schools should support pupil’s interest in climate change and tackling both its causes and effects, it would not be appropriate to encourage pupils to join specific campaigning groups or engage in specific political activity, such as protests.
It’s interesting that presenting different viewpoints is considered “misinformation”. Now, limited discussion is permitted, but only in terms of what kind of solutions could be offered. In other words, the underlying claims of a crisis are not open for discussion. Is that how science works?
[Page 22] By 2025:
• DfE and its arms-length bodies will mandate that all suppliers bidding for contracts over £5m per year, commit to achieving Net Zero by 205012. Additionally, they must publish a Carbon Reduction Plan, which will clearly show how they will meet this target.
In the next few years, if a company wants to land a significant contract with the British Government, they’ll have to play along with this hoax, regardless of the costs to the business.
Documents like Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement are absolutely political in nature. To push them neutrally, without talking about the unending money flow is disingenuous. There really is no substitute for just reading the papers.
It’s infuriating, this technique of instilling fear and terror on impressionable minds. If you want society to stay intact, these are the measures that must be taken.
This review hardly does the paper real justice. The Government doesn’t even pretend that it’s not trying to trap the children at a young age.
Of course, it must be pointed out that Britain is hardly the only country to do this. Across the world, varying degrees of this indoctrination is going on. This is just some of the more obvious.
Yes, there was an actual conspiracy theory guide published in March 2020. Now, that date shouldn’t raise any suspicions whatsoever. This publication comes across as a form of gaslighting, cloaked in fake empathy and understanding.
At first glance, this small book may be dismissed as trolling or satire. However, the authors are very serious, and have put considerable effort into this publication. It’s also very interesting that such a publication can be put out with little to no concern for the consequences. Can you imagine a skeptic who questioned climate change publishing something similar to this?
Apparently people who feel vulnerable are spreading conspiracy theories. It can also be seen as a way to be contrarian in political circles. Instead of recommending that the truth be investigated, people seeking truth can be dismissed for a variety of reasons.
There is also a good deal of projection here. Many so-called “conspiracy theorists” are in fact searching for truth, and trying to make logical sense of what is going on. In the case of the (alleged) pandemic, it’s public figures and the media who keep shifting the goal posts. Also, this site has covered in great detail the amount of financial subsidies that mainstream outlets receive.
Conspiracy theories aren’t always the result of genuinely held false beliefs. They can be intentionally constructed or amplified for strategic, political reasons. For example, there is evidence that the Russian government recently contributed to the spread of various political conspiracy theories in the West.
Conspiracy theories may be deployed as a rhetorical tool to escape inconvenient conclusions. The rhetoric of climate denial is filled with incoherence, such as the simultaneous claims that temperature cannot be measured accurately but global temperatures have declined. Incoherence is one attribute of conspiratorial thinking, but it does not follow that climate denial is irrational—on the contrary, denialist rhetoric is an effective political strategy to delay climate action by undermining people’s perception of the strength of scientific evidence.
In confirmation, people selectively appeal to a conspiracy among scientists to explain away a scientific consensus when their political ideology compels them to do so—but not when the scientific consensus is of no relevance to their politics.
Prebunking
If people are preemptively made aware that they might be misled, they can develop resilience to conspiratorial messages. This process is known as inoculation or prebunking. There are two elements to an inoculation: an explicit warning of an impending threat of being misled, and refutation of the misinformation’s arguments. Prebunkings of anti-vaccination conspiracy theories have been found to be more effective than debunking.
This is a way to preempt a person from asking logical questions. If you implant the idea in their heads, any doubts that might later occur may seem like conspiracy theories setting in.
Source-based and empathy-based debunking
Source-based debunking attempts to reduce the credibility of conspiracy theorists whereas empathy-based debunkings compassionately call attention to the targets of conspiracy theories. A source-based debunking that ridiculed believers of lizard men was found to be as effective as a fact-based debunking. In contrast, an empathy-based debunking of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that argued that Jews today face similar persecution as early Christians was unsuccessful
When all else fails, a little emotional manipulation can do the trick. Think of how the targets of your theories may feel. Never mind the truth or accuracy of such suspicions.
Trusted messengers Counter-messages created by former members of an extremist community (“exiters”) are evaluated more positively and remembered longer than messages from other sources.
Another technique is to recruit people who used to believe (or claim to have believed) in a conspiracy theory before. Apparently they entire thing comes across as more trustworthy this way. This may explain why crisis actors and “reformed” people are all the rage. They can conjure up a good narrative.
Show empathy
Approaches should be empathic and seek to build understanding with the other party. Because the goal is to develop the conspiracy theorist’s open-mindedness, communicators must lead by example.
Have to love the approach here. Let’s pretend to show an understanding with another person, which having already written them off as conspiracy nuts.
An astute reader will notice that these authors don’t really suggest that conspiracy theories get fact checked, and that people work out their accuracy for themselves. Instead, we have a variety of techniques to be employed to plant seeds of doubt in people’s minds
Perhaps we can take something from this. Since we know (in broad strokes) what techniques will be employed, it should become easier to counter them.
Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.
See section #8 for links to the various groups that George Soros and the Open Societies are financing. This will give insight as to what the motivations are.
3. Context For This Article
Knowing who funds an organization is important to knowing its real goal, especially if it is something other than profit. Money speaks louder than words. This review looks at the various Open Society groups headed by George Soros, and where the money is going. The Open Society funds a variety of causes, but the goal is the same: collapse of Western Civilization.
Some examples include:
Open borders NGOs are funded in order to advance policies of loosening immigration rules. This means funding political candidates who share these views
Cultural Marxist groups are funded since their goal is upending social norms. They claim that others are being oppressed, and are anti-white, in particular anti-white men. Note: these groups often share open borders ideals.
So-called “anti-hate” groups are funded, whose objective is to silence legitimate criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration.
Open Society funds scholarships of foreign students often leads to them permanently settling in the West, especially with the diversity laws on the books. As such, student visas are a form of backdoor population replacement.
Open Society partners with the Canadian Government (and other Governments) on refugee relocation programs
Open Society indirectly finances court challenges to strike down, amend or otherwise weaken our borders
To put it mildly, this is a convoluted mess of connections and financing. This critique in no way covers everything that is going on. However, it is meant to shed light on how bad the problem is.
4. Review By Civilian Intelligence Network
The corruption of higher education by the Soros cabal was covered by Civilian Intelligence Network in this earlier article. In depth and with a lot of detail, it is worth a long read. This will not be a rehash of the CIN piece, but rather some different coverage brought to George Soros.
There isn’t a single Open Society Group. Rather, it is a series of charities available for tax-exempt status. The above records are available with this link, and searching the IRS.
6. Michael Ignatieff VP Open Society Fund
Michael Ignatieff is the rector and president of Central European University in Budapest. A university professor, writer, and former politician, Ignatieff served for three years as the Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Practice of Politics and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he was the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy from 2000 to 2005.
Ignatieff earned his doctorate in history at Harvard University, and has taught at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; Kings College, Cambridge; the London School of Economics and Political Science; and the University of British Columbia. Active in Canadian politics from 2006 to 2011, Ignatieff was a member of parliament and leader of the Liberal Party. An author and journalist, he is widely published, including Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (2013) and The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. In 2019, he was awarded The Dan David Prize for the defense of democracy.
Does that last name look familiar? It should. Michael Ignatieff used to be the head of the Canadian Liberal Party, from early 2009 until mid 2011. Only the biggest defeat in Liberal history kept him from becoming Prime Minister. He is now on the Board of the Open Society Foundation.
Ignatieff crashed and burned in the May 2011 Federal election. However, Soros would get a Liberal Prime Minister as a puppet in the very next session. As a bonus, Chrystia Freeland would also get elected, and get chosen for Foreign Affairs Minister.
7. Areas Open Society Finances
CATEGORY
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
DP
$76.5M
$102.9M
$113.9M
$99.3M
$140.5M
ECE
$18.6M
$20.7M
$21.9M
$21.3M
$22M
EGA
$76.7M
$127.4M
$146.2M
$131.7M
$136.7M
EAD
$75.8M
$82.4M
$80.2M
$85.3M
$111.5M
HR
$47.3M
$58.8M
$50.1M
$46.8M
$47.2M
EDU
$26.0M
$19.5M
$52.2M
$85.3M
$63.7M
DP = Democratic Practice
ECE = Early Childhood Education
EGA = Economic Governance & Advancement
EAD = Equality & Anti-Discrimination
HR = Health & Rights
EDU = Higher Education
For a glimpse into what groups Open Society sees as worthy of funding, consider this 2016, 2017, and 2018 returns, and the names that are on it. There are a lot of NGOs and civil societies who receive Soros money.
EIN: 52-2028955
GROUP
YEAR
AMOUNT GIVEN
American Civil Liberties Union
2016
$170,000
Advance Carolina
2016
$112,500
Alliance San Diego Mobilization
2018
$150,000
America’s Voice
2018
$575,000
American Immigration Council
2016
$190,000
American Immigration Council
2017
$190,000
American Immigration Council
2018
$35,000
American Jewish World Service
2017
$150,000
Amnesty International USA
2016
$350,000
Amnesty International USA
2017
$350,000
Amnesty International USA
2018
$250,000
Arizona Wins
2016
$75,000
Arizona Wins
2017
$425,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
2016
$300,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
2018
$650,000
Bend The Arc Jewish Action
2018
$200,000
Beyond The Choir
2018
$140,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network
2016
$80,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network
2017
$80,000
Center For American Progress
2018
$240,000
Center For A New Economy
2016
$120,000
Center For Community Change Action
2016
$1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action
2017
$2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action
2018
$1,060,000
Center For International Policy
2018
$125,000
Center For Popular Democracy
2016
$1,030,000
Center For Popular Democracy
2018
$700,000
Color Of Change
2018
$350,000
Engage Cuba
2017
$750,000
Every Voice
2016
$475,000
Institute For Asian Democracy
2016
$25,000
J Street
2017
$25,000
J Street Action Fund
2017
$25,000
Maine People’s Alliance
2016
$400,000
Mercy Corps
2016
$150,000
Mercy Corps
2017
$150,000
MoveOn Org Civic Action
2016
$25,000
National Ass’n Latino Elected
2016
$55,000
National Security Archive Fund
2016
$55,000
New Left Acceleration
2016
$250,000
Planned Parenthood
2018
$1,000,000
Pretrial Justice Institute
2016
$50,000
Pretrial Justice Institute
2017
$50,000
Project On Middle East Democracy
2017
$90,000
Retain A Just Nebraska
2016
$500,000
San Diegans For Voter Participation
2016
$200,000
Sierra Club
2016
$125,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund
2016
$481,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund
2017
$2,257,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund
2018
$3,837,000
Taxpayers For Sentencing Reform
2016
$500,000
The Aspen Institute
2018
$65,000
The Constitution Project
2016
$50,000
Tides Advocacy
2018
$1,760,000
Tides Center
2016
$20,000
Tides Center
2018
$22,500
America’s Voice claims to track hatred and racist media. Consider it a form of the ADL, or the Canadian Anti-Hate Network
The Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund, sells itself as a voter empowerment group, but is really concerned with pushing for the “rights” of people in the country illegally.
The American Immigration Council effectively wages lawfare against the United States by challenging existing laws and regulations as unconstitutional.
The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is a group trying to mobilize younger people, in an effort to get more liberal policies voted into law.
This group, Bend The Arc Jewish Action, is a group trying to mobilize Jews into a political force. The goal allegedly is to defeat white supremacy and give power to marginalized people.
The group Beyond The Choir looks at different marketing strategies for how to promote and advance liberal causes in the West. Also touts an openly anti-Trump agenda.
The Center For American Progress Action Fund contains many Democrats in high ranking positions. It’s an openly partisan group trying to get Donald Trump out of office.
The Center For Popular Democracy is a group that promotes every marginalized group under the sun, claiming that they are all oppressed.
The group Color Of Change calls itself a “racial justice” group, and is trying to build real power for black communities, whatever that means.
Community Change Action is a group trying to get more people voting for pro-immigration policies, and focuses on potentially close political races.
Sixteen Thirty seems to be missing, (was it taken down?) but according to critics, it was used to influence politicians towards liberal leaning causes.
The Aspen Institute is a think tank which promotes global solutions to a variety of world problems. Interesting list of members.
The Tides Foundation promotes and funds a variety of environmental and social justice causes around the world.
Of course this is nowhere near all of the groups who receive some funding from the various Open Society groups. But it does help illustrate the types of institutions that George Soros and his people would be interested in financing.
9. Open Society & Higher Education
GROUP
YEAR
AMOUNT GIVEN
John Hopkins University
2017
$15,000
Fellows Of Harvard College
2016
$50,000
University Of Maryland
2017
$49,000
Fellows Of Harvard College
2016
$196,000
Various Scholarships (12)
2016
$717,000
Various Scholarships (12)
2017
$717,000
The above listings are just a small sample of what the various Open Society groups offer.
This has been addressed many times on this site. However, the typical Canadian is completely unaware of just how many students and temporary workers are being let into the country. While this is sold to the public as forms of “temporary” migration, the reality is that there are many pathways to stay longer.
10. Open Society Pushes For More Refugees
UNITED NATIONS/NEW YORK CITY, September 19, 2016 – The Government of Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations have agreed to launch a joint initiative aimed at increasing private sponsorship of refugees around the world. Research demonstrates that privately sponsored refugees tend to have relatively early, positive integration and settlement outcomes, thanks in part to the social support provided by sponsors.
This announcement came from the UN High Commission on Refugees.
In September 2016, a partnership was announced between the Canadian Government, the UN High Commission on Refugees and the Open Society, to bring more refugees to Canada.
Interesting side note: despite all the attention that the UN Global Migration Compact gained in 2018, few people seemed to care about its predecessor, the New York Declaration, which was adopted in September 2016.
11. UNCHR Party To Canada/U.S. Border
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
Few people know this, but the UNHCR is legally speaking, a party to this agreement. It is not a bilateral pact between 2 countries, but includes at least 3. Yet this detail isn’t spoken about in the media.
In fact, Canada hasn’t had true border security since 2002 (when the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was signed), if it ever did at all. This is addressed in Part 7 of the series.
12. Open Society Finances Lawfare In Court
FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
Since 1989, NGOs have made at least 3 major attempts to have portions of our laws struck down. This would make it easier for fake refugees to enter from the United States. This has been addressed elsewhere in the series, such as in Part 16.
But an interesting piece of the puzzle was left out: who’s funding this? Who is the source of financing for the lawyers who want to strike down Canadian Borders?
GROUP
YEAR
AMOUNT GIVEN
Amnesty International USA
2016
$350,000
Amnesty International USA
2017
$350,000
Amnesty International USA
2018
$250,000
This of course is the American counterpart, but Amnesty International works in similar ways across Western nations. Obviously, Amnesty International has many donors. However, the Open Society does contribute to groups who take Governments to court to allow refugees easier access.
13. Soros Allegedly Funding Civil Unrest
A disclaimer to start out with: given that these are still not proven fully at this point, the qualifier “allegedly” will be used here. It has been alleged that the Center For Community Change has helped finance and coordinate Antifa riots and other violent demonstrations, with money from the Open Society and other such groups.
GROUP
YEAR
AMOUNT GIVEN
Center For Community Change Action
2016
$1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action
2017
$2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action
2018
$1,060,000
This data is available from the 2016 to 2018 tax returns for the Open Society Policy Center (EIN: 52-2028955). From the information presented, Open Society clearly does fund the group Center for Community Change Action. However, the group obviously doesn’t publicly admit to staging violence.
15. Caravans Facilitating Illegal Entry
Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a transborder organization made up of human rights defenders of diverse nationalities and immigration statuses that promotes accompaniment, humanitarian assistance, leadership development, recognition of human rights, and coordination of know-your-rights training along migrant routes, as well as monitoring and raising awareness of human rights abuses against migrants and refugees in Mexico and the United States. Our accompaniment does not end at the border, it continues in the immigration detention centers of the United States and the communities in Mexico and the US.
This NGO openly admits that its agenda is getting people across the border from the United States into Mexico. The name, PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS, loosely translates to “Town Without Borders”. It openly supports illegal waves of people (called Caravans) coming up north to the U.S.
WASHINGTON – Hundreds of Central American migrants demanding asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico Sunday may be poor, but they have support of major foundations, corporations and billionaire George Soros for their well-organized caravan-style invasion.
The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo sin Fronteras. But the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services and the American Immigration Lawyers Association – thus the acronym CARA. At least three of the four groups are funded By George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, WND has confirmed
Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a member of the National Day Laborer Network, which is affiliated with United for Justice and Peace, Caravan Against Fear and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The connections run deep between left-wing activism and corporate and foundation sponsorship.
The Democratic Party links are also in strong evidence. Earlier this month, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Kate Brown accepted a contribution to her re-election campaign from Soros – his first direct involvement in that state’s elections. Three days later, Brown announced the Oregon National Guard would not be participating in President Trump’s effort to get the Guard providing border security.
The online site WND has reported that some of the groups behind the Pueblo Sin Fronteras movement have been receiving funds from the Open Society. They cite these following organizations:
American Immigration Council 52-1549711
American Immigration Lawyers
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 52-1584951
Refugee & Immigration Center For Education And Legal Services
The American Immigration Council and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network are both unquestionably being partially funded by the Open Society. It’s quite possible that one or both of the others are being funded through an intermediary.
GROUP
YEAR
AMOUNT GIVEN
Mercy Corps
2016
$150,000
Mercy Corps
2017
$150,000
Worth a mention is the NGO called Mercy Corps, which helps bring large numbers of refugees to the West. Soros is a large supporter of them as well.
16. Trudeau Foundation Media Swamp
Why doesn’t the Canadian media do any real investigating into George Soros, the Open Society (any of those groups), or any of the money flowing to various globalist NGOs? Why aren’t MSM outlets doing much more to inform the public as to what is really going on?
It was addressed in this piece before, that there are many prominent members of the Canadian media who also belong to the Trudeau Foundation. This is likely why (or at least part of the reason) that the coverage is so limited.
The connections between Soros and many nefarious groups is not difficult to piece together, yet the main media heads in Canada simply won’t do it. Refusing to cover a story, or only giving it superficial coverage, is an indication of being controlled opposition.
By contrast, Civilian Intelligence Network actually went into great length about Stephen Toope, the first President of the Trudeau Foundation. The group laid out his many globalist links. This is an example of how investigative journalism SHOULD be done.
17. Open Society Attacks In Many Ways
The Open Society (and groups like it) are waging a war against the West. They do this by funding and coordinating a number of events — both legal and illegal — meant to bring about our destruction. Some examples include:
Financing lobby groups to invert social order
Financing “education” to warp public opinion
Financing scholarships to bring more foreign students over
Lobbying to install open borders politicians into office
Financing groups that challenge immigration/refugee laws in court
Financing groups that facilitate illegal mass entries
Financing groups that cause violence in public
Why aren’t these seditionist actions detailed in the mainstream media? Two main reasons are: (a) the MSM is financially dependent on government handouts; and (b) many members are part of the Trudeau Foundation, and similar groups. These conflicts of interest make it impossible for them to act effectively.
In 2018, there was a $595 million bailout of unprofitable media in Canada. This left many outlets in the awkward position of being dependent on the very government they are supposed to hold to account.
There isn’t just a single avenue that Soros or the Open Society groups take. This is a multipronged approach to attacking our civilization. The details need to be shared.
