How Soros' Latest Agitprop Exposed The Hypocrisy Of The Right

blueapples's Photo
by blueapples
Monday, Apr 29, 2024 - 2:11

blueapples on X

It should come as no surprise that the pro-Palestinian protests across college campuses nationwide have been exposed as another agitprop operation funded by none other than George Soros. Just like in the last election year, the social discord manufactured by Open Society financed movements seeks to inject the masses with a dose of hysteria as election day quickly approaches. Although it is ironic that many speculated, if not outright asserted, that Hamas itself was behind the protests when in fact it is a Jewish man in the form of Soros, it should not be unexpected he would be behind them. Since before the protests took to college campuses, Soros' entities like the Tides Foundation had been funding protests against Israel in cities across the US. Furthermore, many of the colleges that are the hub of the protests are beneficiaries of dark money firms financed by Soros such as Arabella Advisors. This includes Columbia University, which has become the epicenter of these protests.

In the eyes of the right wing of the American political spectrum, that revelation has essentially validated their criticism that these protests are little more than a vehicle for the Cultural Marxist agenda Soros and his acolytes espouse. However, evidence to that point has been sparse as the protests have all but entirely been consistent in their adamant opposition to the US' support of Israel's war in Gaza and haven't deviated into anything like outspokenness explicitly against presidential candidate Donald Trump like previous instances of Soros-orchestrated social justice protests have. Perhaps the hubris of the "I told you so" moment that came when Soros' was exposed as the architect of the co-opting these protests has done exactly what the social engineer desired. By provoking the reactionary response against these college protests, Soros has seemingly further fortified the pro-Israel lobby's position by manipulating America's right wing into aligning with it and in doing so exposing its hypocrisy over the issues of free speech and free assembly as a means of anti-establishment activism.

Guess who's back?

That hypocrisy is easily highlighted by re-examining the events of 2020, the last election year Soros took to these tactics. During the pandemic, Soros' funding of Black Lives Matters protests across the nation highlighted the bias that the political establishment in the US had when it came to respecting the rights of free speech and free assembly. Earlier in the year when other protesters took to venues across the country to oppose lockdowns implemented during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, their demonstrations were broken up under the pretense that the public health emergency that spawned the totalitarian dictate they were rallying against superseded their constitutional rights protecting them in doing so. That unconstitutional violation of the rights to free speech and free assembly wasn't limited to targeting demonstrations defying the government response to the pandemic alone. Those violations were also waged digitally as the federal government's national security and intelligence apparatus' took to sites like Twitter to target conservatives and anyone else who dared to challenge the politically correct COVID-19 narrative.

In the wake of that clearly concerted effort to police free speech to quash any defiance against the powers that be who were behind the pandemic, America's right maligned how the Bill Of Rights had seemingly been desecrated so that the ruling elite could advance their agenda without resistance. While they were right to hold that position, it's taken less than 4 years to memoryhole how the political establishment executes that modus operandi. Now, the same demographic of the electorate that previously held the rights imbued into Americans under the First Amendment as sacred has been manipulated into throwing them out the window. In response to college protests against Israel's war in Gaza, the mainstream American right has become the embodiment of everything they stood against in 2020 by embracing calls to deny protesters their First Amendment rights in support of the neocon axis' self-proclaimed greatest ally: Israel. In doing so, the political faction of the country that was supposedly against the establishment in Washington DC has been assimilated back into it. By doing its bidding as such, the political establishment behind the deep state, permanent Washington, globalism, and whatever other supranational incarnation it takes to undermine the national sovereignty of the United States has regained control of the right.

Of course, the BLM protests of 2020 were far from peaceful protests in any sense of the phrase despite being sanctioned by the government as such. In actuality, they were riots which should not have been protected by the First Amendment in any legal sense aside from the demonstrators who did not turn to vandalism and looting. However, the current protests across college campuses against the war in Gaza are starkly different to the BLM riots of 2020. This is even evident in the political rhetoric issued in response to them. Establishment republicans like Texas Governor Greg Abbott were meticulous in their semantics in 2020, making sure to characterize the BLM chaos as riots. Yet, in addressing the demonstration against the war in Gaza that took place at the University Of Texas, Abbott failed to categorize it as a riot. Instead, the governor quite literally said that "protests" against Israel had no place in Texas, a statement that in and off itself is a betrayal of the US Constitution.

Abbott's self-proclaimed position against protests taking against against Israel should come as no surprise. Texas' governor has been a steadfast ally of Israel, frequently warning of the dangers of antisemitism. While that political position is not unusual or even unmerited, it has become undignified in the example of Greg Abbott as it's has been at odds with the rights of his constituents of Texas. Namely, Abbott's championing of anti-BDS legislation which precludes individuals and organizations from coordinating boycotts of Israeli companies on ethical grounds such as concerns over Israel's human rights record has come under fire as a violation of Texans' First Amendment right to free assembly in coordinating a peaceful movement to express their own political position. In spite of those concerns over Abbott sacrificing Texans' right to free speech, the governor has continued to act as the vanguard of that constitutional right in spite of actions that may suggest otherwise. This dichotomy became especially ironic when Abbott called in the Texas State Department Of Public Safety to break up a pro-Palestinian demonstration on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin after he previously had signed a law into effect that aimed to protect students rights to free speech on college campuses in the wake of suppression against non-politically correct demonstrations against the progressive orthodoxy of academia.

This ostensible contradiction should come as no surprise to critics of the governor. It was just one month ago that Abbott reaffirmed the criticism that his policies on Israel were the exception to the rules governing free speech in the state of Texas. Ahead of the fever pitch that pro-Palestinian protests across college campuses nationwide have reached, Abbott issued an executive order directing universities across Texas to revise their free speech policies explicitly in instances of speaking out against Israel under the veil of fighting antisemitism. In doing so, Abbott sought to preempt the inevitable conflict that would unfold during protests across campuses across Texas. 

The measures Abbott took are the culmination of exactly what the likes of Soros have sought to achieve. Pro-Palestinian protests have enabled social architects like him behind the protests to carefully craft a narrative in response that furthers their ulterior motives. It would be naive to suggest Soros wants a free Palestine or that he wants to highlight the human rights abuses and possible war crimes of the state of Israel. Soros is an agent provacateur, after all. What he wants above all else is chaos. Chaos to bring order out of to further shape the world in his image in the vein of Olam HaTohu and Olan HaTikun, the concepts behind the Kabbalistic tenet of the shattering of the vessels. The aim of principle has been made more palatable in the Jewish ideal of Tikkun Olam or repairing the world, a value that traces its origins to the Mishnah of the Talmud which tasks the Jewish people with rebuilding the world in their image for the better.

What becomes problematic is when the empowerment those principles gives meets the subjectivity of what good is in the eye of the beholder. While Soros' denies having any sort of God complex behind his motives his conduct exemplifies the antithesis. How Soros seeks to create chaos to bring order out of is done politically through the execution of Marx's dialectical materialism. That Marxist theory postulates that influencing real-world conditions can be used to facilitate a change of social structures. For Cultural Marxists, promoting protests in any form serves as a catalyst to achieve that ultimate goal. Though secular on its face, the way Soros has utilized this methodology is analogous to aforementioned Kabbalistic principle of assuming the role of a creator to reshape the world in one's image.

Marxist dialectical materialism often misconstrued as the Hegelian Dialectic in conspiratorial circles despite Marx's dialectics literally being based on their opposition to Hegel's. Terminology aside, the dynamic of the dialectic methodology is much more easy to discern. Dialectical material follows the sequence of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Though that progression can be traced to the earliest days of dialectics from ancient Greeks like Xeno of Elea, the modern application in the aim of reshaping social order requires a problem to created in order to provoke a reaction that edges closer to the preordained outcome. In this instance, the thesis takes the form of the pro-Palestianian protests Soros has orchestrated, while the antithesis comes in the form of the prevailing reactionary narrative that has become the false equivocation of being against Israel's war in Gaza as being the same as being antisemitism. The synthesis of those opposing forces achieves its aim of assimilating the aims of the Cultural Marxists supposedly opposed by the American right into its own agenda. For so long to the American right, the sheer concept of "hate speech" has been vehemently rejected in recent years as free speech has come under attack. Under the thumb of Soros' latest social engineering projects, the right has come to embrace the weaponization of the idea of hate speech, in doing so further consolidating the pro-Israel lobby's stranglehold on American politics and turning the self-proclaimed last vestige against globalism into its newest accomplice.

What furthers evidences how deeply the response to protests across the country is divorced from reality and instead aligned with an underlying agenda is best demonstrated by examining reality in contrast to the simulacra the narrative crafters have morphed it into. According to them, these protests are not instances of citizens exercising their right to free speech because what they are doing is promoting violence against Jewish people. While inciting violence is surely not protected speech under the First Amendment, one would be hard-pressed to find any sort of coordinated message to the effect reactionaries claim exists present on college campuses where these protests have unfolded. All it would take to dispel that notion is a cursory examination of the protests themselves.

For instance, Jewish students at Columbia University have freely joined in support of the pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The Columbia encampment even has seen Jewish students observe the Sabbath and hold Seder to celebrate Passover within its confines. That empirical evidence alone is emblematic that these encampments are not the training camps for Hamas' militants or the building ground of Auschwitz 2.0 their opponents suggest they are.

What the self-proclaimed "liberation zones" may actually be is a forum for something more contrived for the social engineers who have built them up. George Soros seems to have taken a page out of M.A. Rothschild's book by funding both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict in order to execute a divide and conquer strategy. In recent days, pro-Palestinian protesters have been confronted by pro-Israel demonstrators who have been mobilized to oppose their counterparts. In doing so, a rash of false flag "attacks" have been perpetrated by the pro-Israel demonstrators in an apparent effort to fabricate the claims they've made about an immediate threat to their safety since it hasn't manifest organically as they would have liked so that they would have merit to vilify their opposition.

A pro-Israel NGO has been linked to organizing those efforts to send agitators to protests. In a post on X, the Shirion Collective advertised its first undercover operation, recruiting pro-Israel agitators to pose as pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

One instance of this tactic took place on the campus of Northeastern University where over 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested. University police justified the mass arrests by citing that protesters started chanting antisemitic messages. “Last night, the use of antisemitic slurs, including “Kill the Jews” crossed the line,” police stated. “We cannot tolerate this kind of hate on our campus.” However, video evidence from the scene of the arrests shows that the protester who shouted "Kill the Jews" appears to have been holding an Israeli flag as part of a contingent of counter protesters opposing the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in an apparent (and successful) effort to elicit a police response against them.

The episode on the Northeastern campus isn't the only instance of events being contrived to promote the idea that these protests are inherently violent. Aside from outside agitators, mainstream media outlets have brazenly mischaracterized events on campuses across the nation to further that narrative.

One such sensationalist piece was published by the New York Post during its coverage of the protests enveloping the Yale University campus. The Post ran with the title Jewish Yale Student Journalist Stabbed In The Eye With Palestinian Flag During Protest when chronicling the alleged attack on Sahar Tartak, editor-in-chief of the Yale Free Press. According to the article, Tarak stated she has been singled-out and attacked by pro-Palestinian protesters because she was wearing Hasidic Jewish attire when covering the protests. “There’s hundreds of people taunting me and waving the middle finger at me, and then this person waves a Palestinian flag in my face and jabs it in my eye,” Tartak told The Post.

Video that emerged from the alleged attack paints a much different picture. The video shows the pro-Palestinian protester whose flag "stabbed" Tartak do little more than make incidental contact with her. The first-person point-of-view from the attack doesn't offer a perspective that can validate whether or not the flag did make contact with the Yale student's eye. However, the optics of the incident caught on camera pale in comparison to Tarak's claims that she was the victim of a targeted attack who had previously been singled out and confronted by the perpetrator. “There’s hundreds of people taunting me and waving the middle finger at me, and then this person waves a Palestinian flag in my face and jabs it in my eye,” Tartak told The Post.

When Tartak spoke with the New York Post, she told reporters that she was shopping for an eye patch as they interviewed her over the phone. One might assume that an injury to an eye that would require medical attention would see the patient being treated provided with an eye patch by the treating physician, though that would be speculative. Perhaps Tartak really was at the eye patch store. However, if that was the case, the gravity of her injury was not apparent as she was able to join the Piers Morgan show without adorning an eye patch. During her appearance on Piers Morgan, Tartak appeared uninjured, at least to the extent that claim of being stabbed in the eye suggested.

If Tarak's account of her treatment as a Jewish student at Yale doesn't exactly prove that the protesters enveloping the campus have created an unsafe environment, she can at least rest assured that she was outmatched in her futility to make that point. In a separate incident, an X user by the name of William Iannuzzi and his wife took to the Yale campus in an effort to highlight the turmoil Jewish students and faculty faced when confronted by protesters. In a now deleted post from his now private account, Iannuzzi tweeted "My wife is a brave Jew. We stood alone at Yale University today. She wore no mask and was proud. Notice the horde hiding behind their masks." In the video, Iannuzzi's wife stands amidst demonstrators wearing a shirt with the work "JEW" painted across it, defiantly chanting how she was not afraid of the protesters. The only problem? Despite claiming that she was attempting be defiant in the face of hate, she didn't seem to have any hate to defy as her protest went entirely without incident. Despite the obvious attempts to get the attention of the protesters, Iannuzzi's wife went completely unnoticed. That outcome was not an illustration of the hate filled Yale campus the Iannuzzi's maligned in their virtue signalling post on X.

While these instances do not encapsulate the whole of what is a very complex social climate in which a multitude of voices coalesce into a cacophony of conflicting ideas and beliefs, they do serve as evidence that undermines the overly reductive logic posited by those who seek to exploit this chaos to further erode American's rights to free speech and free assembly. What the Marxist undertones of this coordinated attack on free speech show is how deeply ingrained Soros' influence on American politics has become. This is evident in the re-emergence of rhetoric from the Republican Party that hearkens back to the Bush era in which the threat of radical Islam was used to trample over the constitution. This time around, the fear mongering centered around pro-Palestinian protests nationwide has been used to deflect away from criticism of new Republican leadership under Speaker Of The House Mike Johnson. That distraction has shifted the narrative away from criticizing his broken promises to America First voters then reached their overture when he cast the deciding vote to re-authorize Section 702 of the FISA act and through the role he played in leading the house to pass the $95 billion joint aid package to Ukraine, Taiwan, and of course; Israel. By being able to point to the contrived optics of a radical Islamic threat being seeded in the US, Johnson has been able to maneuver the attention of Republicans away from his betrayal.

While the Republican Party has sought to distance itself from the neocon influence that thrust itself into ruin following the end of the Bush administration, especially under its supposed embrace of populism, the hypocritical response of policing free speech in the wake of nationwide protests highlights that is nothing more than a disingenuous re-brand. While Cultural Marxism was once thought to purely be an infiltration of the Democratic Party and liberal institutions, it is now showing signs of having corrupted the Republican Party and conservative institutions as well. Given the charade that is the false dichotomy of our two-party system in which the Democrats and Republicans serve as nothing more than factions of a uniparty, Soros' influence over both, indirect or otherwise, should come as no surprise. His manipulation of politicians once thought to oppose his globalist aims by influencing them to use the guise of antisemitism to undermine civil liberties has little-to-nothing to do with protecting Jewish lives. Instead, it has everything to do with destroying American values.

Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.