Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Poland

Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita in the service of chaos after Soros takeover

Rzeczpospolita headquarters in Warsaw (Author: I, Hiuppo, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2512053)

Just ahead of the elections, one of Poland’s leading newspapers has been taken over by a fund belonging to George Soros, with part of the shares then being resold to a connected Hungarian left-wing media tycoon.

 

Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz

 

The acquisition by Pluralis B.V. of full control over Rzeczpospolita, still one of Poland’s most influential newspapers, just a month and a half before the parliamentary elections could not have been seen as a pure business transaction even if that company had been a normal profit-oriented business operating in the interests of shareholders. And that is not what it is. Pluralis B.V., formally a Netherlands-based investment fund, is owned by George Soros, and is one of the tools with which he has carried on political activity for many decades, consistently supporting what Douglas Murray called in his recent book the “War on the West”: the destruction of the values and principles on which European civilization was built, in the name of ever more extreme demands of the progressivists, referred to collectively in recent years as “woke.”

So if Soros is taking over another Polish media outlet (he already has a large stake in Agora, which owns Gazeta Wyborcza and TOK FM, and in the company Eurozet, which controls Radio Zet – in this case he also has a separate shareholding as SFS Ventures, and according to stock exchange analysts commenting on the transaction he was the initiator and essential backer of the station’s takeover), then it is certainly not because he has noticed an opportunity to increase his profits.

 

The independence of Polish media

One of the few good things to come out of this transaction is that it provides an opportunity to draw attention to the problem of media independence in Poland. At a time when liberal-left circles are constantly squealing in their election campaigns about a supposed threat to freedom from the PiS “regime,” it is worthwhile once again to recall the media policy that Donald Tusk pursued during his time as prime minister. The story of how the British shareholder Mecom was “squeezed out” of the then publisher of Rzeczpospolita and the weekly Uważam Rze, the most influential in its market segment, through the government’s persistent blocking of all of the company’s decisions, is one of the starkest manifestations of that policy. This sits alongside the deal made with Angela Merkel – confirmed by the waiters’ tape recordings – to replace an editor of Fakt whom the governing Civic Platform found inconvenient. The Tusk team’s strategy of paralyzing Presspublika ultimately succeeded: the British agreed to sell their holding to the government-nominated businessman Grzegorz Hajdarowicz, who didn’t even put up a penny toward the purchase – he paid with money from Leszek Czarnecki, who had been unmasked in Rzeczpospolita as a former covert agent for the communist security service, and he received the state-owned shares on credit.

Hajdarowicz’s rule at the newly acquired paper must be judged unequivocally: in a short time he brought about the fall of Uważam Rze, having entrusted it to a team led by Jan Piński, who was linked to Roman Giertych (and today is just one of the anti-PiS haters present online), and similarly oversaw the bankruptcy of the weekly Przekrój that he had bought together with Rzeczpospolita.

The daily was dealt a crushing blow after it printed a story about the discovery of traces of TNT on the wreck of the crashed presidential Tupolev in Smolensk (later events confirmed the truth of this claim), when following night-time consultations by the neighborhood trash bins with his old friend and Tusk right-hand man Paweł Graś, Hajdarowicz abruptly fired the paper’s editor and the author of the piece. From then on Rzeczpospolita went into decline, being passed between successive companies conjured up by Hajdarowicz, and reduced more and more to the role of a backing for stock-market juggling acts. The appearance of Soros, seeking an opportunity to expand his media empire in Poland and, as the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles once put it, “to make a mess of the world under the guise of altruism, at which Soros has become a champion,” was therefore easy to foresee.

While the hostile takeover of Rzeczpospolita by Tusk’s sidekick had had limited aims – preventing criticism of his government and promoting his party’s propaganda agenda – the new owner can be assumed to have much more far-reaching intentions. Of course, in the coming elections, Rzeczpospolita will remain where it was before, in the left-liberal media camp. It will be selling the fabrications of the PO spin doctors, just as it sold the made-up tales about PiS cutting down trees, planning to ban sex education, or selling off Polish forests to the Chinese. It will continue to provide column inches to authorities explaining the continued personal or policy somersaults of the “democratic opposition,” and will no doubt also join the campaign to persuade the anti-PiS electorate not to “waste their votes” on the smaller left-liberal parties, so as to let these sink below the threshold for parliamentary representation, as is Donald Tusk’s current goal. Rzeczpospolita has long pursued all of these objectives, while admittedly taking greater care to keep up appearances than in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza and the Ringier Axel Springer media. When the paper’s editor was made to apologize thickly and humbly for carelessly printing Jacek Kurski’s piece, no change of owner was necessary.

 

Soros’ hostile takeover

George Soros has ambitions as far-sighted as the “global reset” and “new world order” projects put forward at discussions and lectures in Davos. This 90-year-old billionaire revolutionary, who recently stepped back from his activities and entrusted day-to-day leadership of his revolutionary empire to his son, having first become active when the Soviet Union still existed (which meant he could present his “open society” idea as a battle against evil communism on behalf of democracy, civil freedoms and other values of Western civilization), cultivates a vision of grand world reconstruction. To paraphrase Stefan Żeromski, he has the “courage of Lenin” – or rather Lenin, Mao Zedong, Robespierre and other destroyers of existing order rolled into one. He differs from them only on one point: instead of revolutionary violence, it is money that he has made his means of achieving his great visions, becoming the first to use on a wide scale in politics the mechanism of acquisition and “hostile takeover” that is omnipresent in big business.

Of course, Soros’ activities over the years never had anything to do with “philanthropy,” as left-liberal propaganda constantly foists on the minds of its victims. Philanthropy means funding nurseries, care homes, or meal centers for the homeless, and not media, street fights, or ideological centers for training political activists and ordinary participants in the socialist “long march through the institutions.” Were this not the case, the greatest philanthropist of modern times would have to be the Soviet KGB, which during the Cold War spent billions to fund “peace movements”, “environmentalists” and terrorists in capitalist states. Persistently calling Soros a “billionaire philanthropist” serves to misrepresent the true nature of his activities, although the use of that term makes it easy to identify the media having some kind of link with the wide network of foundations, funds, firms and organizations that make up the global “open society” web.

It is possible to uncover and observe that web and to point out the mutual links and financial streams – many books have already been written showing how the Lenin of Finance operates in America, although those authors have presumably not been able to discover everything. The world of finance and links between corporations is increasingly opaque even to journalists specializing in the field, and this is the case even when corporations forgo such refined means of concealment as the Scottish “limited partnership” or Swiss “bearer share” companies (interested readers will find much telling information on these matters in Bullough’s Money Land and Butler to the World and in The World for Sale by Blas and Farchy). However, we are told something about the influence of Soros’ money on the West today by the genuine panic with which the Western European left reacted to the declaration by Soros Junior that he would be redirecting funding from the EU to countries further east.

Harder still than teasing out the threads of the spider’s web that Soros has been weaving for decades, hidden under obscure firms, special-purpose companies and other corporate covers, is discovering what the idea of an “open society” really is. This is a paradox not readily admitted by Soros’ supporters and devotees. All of this huge organizational effort and uncountable sums of money serve to promote something, but it is not clear exactly what. Soros’ money has turned up in the hands of feminists, as well as their bitterest enemies today, trans campaigners. He funds violent actions like the burning of American cities by antifa and BLM groups, as well as peace movements preaching a philosophy of non-violence. He gives money for LGBTQIA+, for “saving the planet”, for antiglobalism, for fighting nuclear energy, for “gender”, “depopulation”, aggressive veganism and all other types of “woke” activity. However, like the Lenins and Maos of the past, he has not presented any positive vision of how this “magnificent new world” would be organized.

It is no accident that I borrow the above quote from Valeurs Actuelles – incidentally from a story published in February 2020 that revealed the links of numerous CJEU and ECHR judges to Soros’ web, which should have left the European Union in shock, but in fact had no practical consequences, just like other pieces of evidence of huge corruption within community bodies. In fact, “making a mess of the world,” as the French weekly described it, is the only common denominator of Soros’ progressive actions. His money appears wherever something is being destroyed: the law, public order, or the values on which civilization and culture are based, just as fundamental as the division between yin and yang, between the male and female elements. What is gained by this destruction, which is carried out, like all revolutions, under the pretense of “defending” or “liberating”? Neither Open Society nor any of Soros’ activist cells has attempted to explain this in any official documents. To find out anything on this subject, we need to refer to the output of the Davos globalists, headed by Klaus Schwab and his ideologist Yuval Harari.

The second great lie in the media’s depiction of George Soros, apart from calling him a “philanthropist,” is the description of him as being motivated by “social justice.” This is quite a touching absurdity: a financial speculator, who by the very nature of his business owes his fortune to unparalleled greed, rapacity, and indifference to the fates of the millions his speculations have condemned to misery, suddenly starts handing out money without the hope of any profit, simply out of kindness of heart. Well, maybe – but after all, Soros is part of a world of similar billionaires, and his interests are tightly bound to the interests of people like him. Is anyone really so naive as to believe that the whole of the world’s plutocracy, all the proverbial financial sharks and wolves of Wall Street, would tolerate and indulge Soros in their ranks if for some eccentric reason he was engaged in activity that struck against their world, giving real support to the rebellion of the masses who want to “eat the rich” and force them to share their fortunes with the starving?

 

The rich have their interests

The holy scriptures tell us to judge people “by their fruit.” And the fruit of the revolution promoted by Soros and many other similar but less well-known sponsors is the complete pacification of the threats that the world oligarchy and big corporations might face from antiglobalist movements and other social rebellions. No longer does anyone want to impose a “Tobin tax” on the oligarchs or to “occupy” Wall Street. The rights of women have been trolled and invalidated by the rights of trans people, zealously tracking and destroying the “terfism” of the old feminism. Care for the natural environment has been drowned out by the climate hysteria that lets the rich grow richer at an unprecedented rate, safe from any complaints that they are destroying whole countries, societies and continents while plundering the resources needed for “environmentally friendly” technologies.

In his excellent book The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, Joel Kotkin spends a whole chapter proving point by point that every item on the woke agenda, from “third bathrooms” and gender quotas to climate policy, in some way or other benefits large corporations and makes the wealthiest more wealthy still. Anything unfavorable to them, like the above-mentioned Tobin tax idea, has vanished from public debate. Not because the supporters of those ideas have been arrested or intimidated, but simply because, lacking financial support, they have been marginalized and drowned out by the wokeists, whose coffers are lined by the billions from Soros and others.

This is something unprecedented in world history – conquest and the imposition of a totalitarian ideology not through violence, but by way of “hostile takeover” and the exploitation of financial advantage. Soros here is of course only a symbol, the best known of these operators, but the scale of his activity, of which the takeover of Polish media and their drafting into the orchestra of world revolution is only a tiny fraction, will assure him of a place in future history textbooks. And it will not be a place among the philanthropists, or indeed any people deserving of respect.

 

This article was first published in Polish in the Do Rzeczy weekly in September 2023.