Leer en Español
Javier Villamor Cantera has a double degree in Journalism and Audiovisual Communication from the CEU San Pablo University of Madrid. Previously, he studied Biological Sciences at the Complutense University in the same city. He has studied in Germany, France, England, the United States, and Canada.
He has worked in various media such as El Economista, La Razón, Agencia EFE and Intereconomía. He has also worked in the communications sector in different agencies and foundations. He is currently part of the 7NN Noticias channel. He collaborates there as an analyst, consultant, and political advisor.
Editor’s note: This interview was originally conducted in Spanish, then translated to English and edited for publication.
Silvio Salas: There is a term used by Olavo de Carvalho that I consider very useful: meta-capitalist. It has been applied, for example, to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, dynasties that have used their vast wealth to promote political agendas and capture the state in favor of their interests. What historical role do you think Soros has in that group? I recall that in one of your recent interviews the headline was “Soros is just a pawn” and also on another occasion, you suggested that he is simply a figurehead.
If there is one thing that should be clear, it is that the truly powerful never appear in the public eye, they do not appear on lists of the richest people like Forbes, they are not mentioned in political or economic magazines, or in magazines such as tabloids or anything like that. But those of us who research on these issues (and more and more people are doing that nowadays) know who are some of the families that have traditionally pulled the strings, as you have just pointed out.
The case of George Soros, and this is the reason for my time dedicated to his figure, is special. A child born between wars — of Jewish origin at a really complicated time for them —, he knew how to “pull his chestnuts out of the fire” as we say in Spain. He had an idea and persevered on it. He discovered that his gifts were not where he wanted them to be (philosophy) and he dedicated himself to funding and being involved in investment management, where he excelled, becoming in his time, one of the best-known men in that arena around the world.
But, for me, the most important thing is not his economic power, but the political power he has achieved thanks to investing a large part of his fortune in modifying society for his own benefit and that of other geopolitical interests (in this case the Anglo-Saxon world, with the United States at the forefront).
Why have I ever called him a “pawn” or a “figurehead”? Because the mistake has been made on too many occasions of demonizing his person by elevating him to something he is not. Does he have great power and will his children perpetuate his work, especially Alexander Soros? Yes. Does he have the same power as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburg, etc.? Not at all.
If people like Soros and many other “philanthropists” show themselves and act, so to speak, in the open, it is because they can, they must and it is necessary to promote a specific agenda.
There are differences between them. Soros worked very intensively through his Open Society Foundations in the 70s and 80s, when everything was still to be done in the political and cultural subversion of regimes contrary to U.S. doctrine. Others, like Gates, have a different profile. But they all serve the same interests, which does not exclude the fact that each one is fighting for his own at the same time.
To summarize, when I studied the method of infiltration of Soros and his foundations in society to bring about change, I realized that our societies are too permeable to actions like this when someone has money and the will to modify them by social engineering. In practice, almost nothing we see is fortuitous or the fruit of the free union of civil society. There are too many interests involved, which poison our democracies and our systems of government.
Picture, Javier Villamor (Facebook).
How would you respond to those who accuse us of “conspiracy theorists” for warning against the influence of meta-capitalists and “false philanthropists” (Fusaro dixit)?
They should take the time to read and contrast other types of information to which they are accustomed to reading. I know that doubting what a person believes is difficult because it implies analyzing oneself first and knowing the reasons why we think, and what we think. I call this “intellectual honesty.” We are less rational beings than we think we are, and it is very easy to be suggestible and to influence our values and belief systems.
On the other hand, one only has to look at the headlines of the newspapers. Conspiracies are the order of the day in all areas of our lives: why is it so hard to understand that at the political level that is the case as well? Too many people prefer to stick to a belief system and not get out of that comfort zone. I can understand that, but I certainly don’t follow that way of thinking.
The deeper one delves into the “bowels” of the system, the more one realizes the web that exists behind it all. An infinite crossover of investments, projects and people working directly or indirectly for common goals; although, as I have already said, it is neither linear nor homogeneous, but dynamic and heterogeneous.
There is another maxim in journalism that I never get tired of repeating it: follow the money. Money does not lie and indicates where the interests of many people are going. When you understand those trends, you can better understand what is happening and it allows you, in some cases, to project future scenarios and players in order to anticipate some events.
There were very few of us who, from the beginning of the COVID health crisis, warned about what it meant, what was going to happen and what the consequences were going to be in the short/medium term. We have been right in practically all aspects and it is not because we have an oracle, but because we spent hours and hours researching in trying to understand the mechanisms of our societies.
It is not always correct, but the objective is that all of us who can contribute data, analysis and information on the subject so that more people can have a more defined global image than the one presented to us deformed by the mass media.
I like to compare changes in society with tidal waves or tsunamis. Let me explain: we know that when a tsunami hits the coasts of a country it is because there has been a collision of tectonic plates in another place, known as the hypocenter, which has its vertical point on land at the epicenter. In society it is the same: the changes we see are the tsunami, but many do not believe that there is an epicenter, much less a hypocenter. Why is this so? The hypocenter would be precisely the media-political-industrial conglomerate that has the capacity to modify our lives, many times without us realizing it.
As you may have noticed, there is a lot of confusion about where to place Soros ideologically. He has even been accused of being a communist, but in reality, he was someone who played an important role in the transition of the former Soviet countries of Eastern Europe to democracy. The best clue is not the name of his foundation, which is a reference to the liberal classic, The Open Society and its Enemies?
This is another reason why the figure of Soros fascinates me. He is someone who has had life experiences that have marked him and who, unlike the billionaires of other times, was not satisfied with living like a king and occasionally donating some money to charity. He is someone with a very concrete philosophy of life and the will to project it. This is something admirable, regardless of the ideas he professes, which, in his case, are harmful to the national sovereignties and social stability of many countries.
It was at the London School of Economics where he met Karl Popper (the ideologue of what is known as the “open society”). This philosopher marked him forever and he had some relationship with him, although Soros’ theories never passed into academic circles as he pretended.
The ideology of Soros and so many like him is money and power. Period. Anyone who gets to those levels of power has had to give up a lot of things and use a lot of other things. Ideas are tools for them. As he explained in an interview, Soros cannot consider the consequences of his actions. He only makes money. That he and Gates (among others) are now presented to us as philanthropists is solely and exclusively a huge marketing and rebranding campaign. They are predators. It is not strange. They have always existed, but let’s avoid buying the idea that they are little lambs that seek our good and come to take care of us. This is not so.
Still on the topic of Eastern Europe, can you discuss the role of the Open Society in Ukraine?
OSF has been working for years for Western interests, especially Anglo-American ones. According to some authors, part of the social instability before and during the so-called Euromaidan in Ukraine in 2014 was thanks to the intervention of Soros and his foundations. What is known as “color revolutions”. The goal? To take Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence and bring it closer to the West no matter what. The last 8 years show that this has been the case and hence, in part, Russia’s attempt to regain lost influence.
This is much more complex than I can express in a few words, but I think you can understand what I am saying if we look at a map.
Geopolitically, who benefits from the actions of Soros and his networks? In 2005 the tycoon told NPR that, despite having campaigned inside the United States the previous year against Bush, the Open Society had the same interests as the State Department.
The key is the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, a private council where the most powerful people in the country make decisions that will affect billions of people around the world. Because the United States, at least for now, is the center of global power. In a way, we can say that this is where certain decisions are made that politicians will later take with better or worse success. It is where the real power lies in the United States, not in the sovereignty of the people. The ECF publishes a magazine (Foreign Affairs) which, like The Economist, helps to understand where part of the world’s elite is going.
Soros was also one of the major financiers of the ECFR, the European version of the American CFR. One more appendage of Washington’s power in Europe. It is clear which interests he works for.
I agree with your diagnosis that supranational organizations undermine the sovereignty of nation-states, moving the centers of political decision-making away from them. However, I do not see the establishment of a world state as feasible. The idea has been sketched out since at least the 18th century in Kant’s On Perpetual Peace; but the state arises as a unit of defense, always as a protection of one group against another. The only way to unite the whole of humanity -to paraphrase Gustavo Bueno- would be in the event of a common threat, such as an extraterrestrial invasion or the impact of a meteorite.
The world state already exists and it is called the United Nations. Perpetual peace and Kant’s idea of constant progress is a fallacy that has served for many to sustain politics on ideas instead of on reality (Realpolitik).
For now it is impossible to think of a seamless pyramidal world government. There are too many conflicts (often provoked or allowed) that prevent the necessary harmony which also fulfill their objectives. Many states are no longer nation-states, they are corporation-states, so the alignment of the former with the latter is much easier, as we have seen during the COVID health crisis. Did it strike anyone that so many countries acted with the same measures recommended by a billionaire on television who, in turn, is one of the biggest financiers of the WHO and an investor in pharmaceutical companies in charge of supplying the millions of relevant inoculations? Let’s remember: follow the money. It is all simpler than it seems at a general level. Now, if we want to know all the ins and outs, we don’t have enough lives to do it.
I do worry about technological progress, despite the advantages it has, which no one disputes. The world state will be built based on this technological advance as it will invade all areas of our lives and we will become slaves without knowing it, permanently controlled and, in many cases, with pleasure.
National regulations are already being adjusted to international agreements. Governments have no autonomy to protect their people and tend to serve supranational interests: borders are blurring, economic stability is lost, native cultures are disappearing due to the cultural conquest of the most powerful countries supported by globalization (social networks, mass media, entertainment, etc.).
There is a window of opportunity against all this, and that is that we are humans and therefore imperfect. The last word has not been said and, until that moment arrives, there is always something left to do. What is our job? Not to remain silent and to continue denouncing abuses of power and manipulation of the masses.
Silvio Salas, Venezuelan, is a writer and Social Communicator, with an interest in geopolitics, culture war and civil liberties // Silvio Salas, venezolano, es un comunicador social interesado en temas de geopolítica, libertades civiles y la guerra cultural.
Sigue a Silvio Salas en Twitter: @SilvioSalasR