180 total views
George Soros is targeting Narendra Modi and India. Looking seriously, you will see echoes of the European doctrine of paramountcy in his subversive narrative. Let us understand Soros and the Democratic Empire building.
Old rich megalomaniacal billionaire and his messiah-complex
An old billionaire with a record of destroying economies and using non-state mechanisms to perpetrate state power in an unconstitutional manner and profit from such an imperialist enterprise.
The man spouting inconsistent demented nonsense like – India is a democracy but its leader, Narendra Modi, is not – is George Soros.
Which is puzzling!
Narendra Modi won a democratic election in 2019 (as he did the one in 2014), which was the largest democratic election in human history with total voter numbers at 900 million.
To understand the fake narrative that this old billionaire is trying to further, check the analytics of the vote share of Modi’s party. In the poor, the backward, the lower caste, and in Muslim majority constituencies. What do you find?
The BJP’s vote share in constituencies where, for example, the Muslim population is between 20-40%, was ~44%. Versus 16.20% in the case of the Congress party. And btw, it had increased by over 8% from the previous elections.
Either Indian Muslims are fools that they voted so overwhelmingly for a man, that George Soros believes incited violence against them!
Or he is spreading false propaganda?
It isn’t difficult to understand which of these is correct.
This Oldfag then goes ahead talking about how bringing down Modi will spread “democratic revival” in India.
No one in the Western world has managed to win an election with anything over a third of the size of the electorate that the 2019 Indian election had.
And yet, the Western press, the think tanks, and the anarchists like Soros have the gumption to throw words like democracy at India’s elected leaders.
Megalomaniacal delusion does not even cut it!
So let’s put this crap about democracy and all the rest of that nonsense aside. Western press, think tanks, anarchists, and establishments have no interest nor any locus standii on those things given their own record in their countries and the ones they have invaded.
Then what is it?
Soros was speaking at the Munich Security Conference. Its an annual conference on global security issues. A German official and publisher Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist started it at the peak of the Cold War.
So a bunch of Western establishment honchos come together in order to discuss the security of the world.
So who gave them the contract for that? To decide for the security and moral situation of the rest of the world?
We will look at this fetish by expanding our time frame.
But before we go there, let us understand George Soros and his own agenda-setting.
“I am subversive wearing masks” – the Real Soros
Per his own admission, his foundations are subversive. And he wears many masks while he indulges in double-speak to do what he believes he needs to do.
A tactic Soros used in Georgia to topple the government there and also in other “color revolutions”. He used deception, double-speak and subversion in Georgia and in Ukraine.
After he had brought the British pound down in September 1992, Soros gave an interview to Anatole Kaletsky of the London Times, to boast about his actions in that whole fiasco.
In Kaletsky’s article, Soros stated that, as the press had conjectured, his fund, Quantum, and several of its offshoots had bet roughly ten billion dollars against the pound (about nine billion of which was borrowed, in Soros’s customary leveraging). He also said that Quantum’s combined speculation, mainly against the pound, had garnered a profit of about two billion dollars. Soros became even more expansive, declaring that in the days before the pound’s collapse “we must have been the biggest single factor in the market.” (Source: The world according to George Soros / New Yorker)
Why did he boast so openly about his deeds?
Soros’ friend, Edgar Astaire, suggested that maybe he felt he was impregnable.
“George never wanted publicity, but he feels he’s past that—he feels he’s impregnable now.”
This man, who openly subverts countries, societies and economies often using his “Open” Societies and Foundations, has a messianic complex.
He admits to what Kaufman calls ”messianic” ideals: ‘‘I have had these illusions, or perhaps delusions, of grandeur and they have driven me.’‘ He has also said that his ”goal is to become the conscience of the world.” (Source: Who Wants to Be a Billionaire? / New York Times)
An imperialist in the garb of a do-goodism cloak and delusions of morally setting the world right for his own profits.
This is precisely how the Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Jaishankar described the subversive interventions of George Soros.
But this isn’t the first time such a mentality and evil has raised its head in the world.
It has been the norm.
Sovereignty, Greed, and Poverty
The British Government in India passed an Elephant Preservation Act in 1879, which made it mandatory for individuals to get a license from the government in order to capture wild elephants. The very next year, the British promulgated another set of rules that covered the area of Keonjhar. British law was now applicable to that princely state.
Dhanurjai Narayan Bhanj Deo was the ruler of Keonjhar. He vehemently protested against this “encroachment” over his “sovereign right”. His argument?
he had an “absolute” right to capture elephants found within his territory without requiring a licence issued by a British Indian authority. (Source: University of Leeds)
Now one can argue that was where the maharaja’s nationalism came alive.
But did it?
He was fine when his entire kingdom was taken away by the British and servility for decadence was shoved onto him without a murmur. The only thing that disturbed him was his right to exercise his depraved lifestyle.
His “nationalism” started when his access to the unbridled right to depravity ended. By then, the lives and security of his people and the freedom of the nation had been pawned irretrievably.
By the time the nation and people would become free again, everything that he knew – his kingdom, his lifestyle, his progeny – would have been relegated to the footnotes of history. When the British left, Keonjhar (part of the Singhbhum-Keonjhar-Banei belt in Odisha) was and remains even now, as one the most backward districts in the country!
That is how the cookie crumbles.
Personal interests of greedy scoundrels who have their hands on the buttons of power become a weapon for the imperialists to rule other nations.
Weaponizing of weak kings and leaders to assert control over their states and people is the central precept of imperialists.
Western Paramountcy and Dangers of Others’ Independence
The imperial enterprise was underlined by the inherent assumption by the Europeans and the West that they somehow had paramountcy over every territory and people on this planet. Even the universe, if they could help it.
The way the British approached the Boers in South Africa showcased this very clearly.
Boer independence, in their eyes, was “dangerous for world peace,” because that “threatened” British paramount power, which incidentally made complete sense!
So the engagement with the Boers was only to push them to surrender their sovereignty.
This right to paramount power over others was what the British imperialists asserted over India.
From Residency to Paramountcy
When Britain was merely trading, the representatives from that country would be commercial agents – also known as British Residents – who would look after the trading interests. This was a system of residency that the East India Company had in India. When the role of East India Company moved from Commercial to Imperial, this system of Residency morphed into the system of Paramountcy.
A representative of the British company was the new sovereign of the kingdom!
The idea of paramountcy was developed in the first decade of the 19th century.
The first clear enunciation of the idea of paramountcy is to be found in Ochterlony’s letter to Metcalfe, dated March 21, 1820, in which he writes: “I hope His Lordship will in Virtue of his Power and Paramountcy forbid all future invasions of Surhoie and fix himself a sum which the Rajah must take”. In his Minute, 1825, Metcalfe speaks of the fact of paramountcy by which the British Government had itself the “duty as supreme guardians of general tranquillity, law and right to maintain the legal succession”. (Source: White Paper on Indian States / Wikisource)
You see, the doctrine of the paramountcy of the British over the Indian rulers was for the good of the colonized. It was to help the subjugated millions who had to be saved.
There was a growing body of opinion within the company that only British control of India could end the constant wars and provide really satisfactory conditions for trade; full dominion would be economical as well as salutary. (Source: “The ascent to paramountcy“/Britannica)
This doctrine of paramountcy was most elaborately described by Lord Reading in his famous letter to the Nizam of Hyderabad in a letter dated 27th March 1926.
Its argument is indistinguishable from what Metcalfe presented in 1825.
And, that is not any different from the argument shared by George Soros in terms of why he thinks his choice of rule and rulers stands paramount in the context of India, despite the country’s unprecedented status of democratic structure and framework.
To select a ruler for the greatest democratic state in the history of humanity is for George Soros a mark of “Democratic Revival”.
The sophistry of the words, the indelible mark of deception, and the burden of a white man’s moral supremacy in Lord Reading’s letter and the speech by George Soros are remarkable in their similarity. The argument is for the paramountcy of one man/group over another nation because, well, the paramount power of the colonizer is supreme and unquestionable.
The ethnocentric sense of superiority that underlined the British doctrines and methods of dealing with Indians and the kingdoms was deeply intertwined with the religious beliefs shaped by the theological assertions of their missionaries.
The Subsidiary alliance system was built upon the principle of British paramountcy by which the Indian kings accepted the power of the British rulers while retaining fictional sovereignty under the “rubric of Pax Britannica,” and ultimately was replaced by an outright rule using another surreptitious mechanism called the “Doctrine of Lapse.”
There is a pattern here.
Creating an alliance for the support and security of the target state. Declaration of paramountcy. Creating structures to complete colonial rule and destruction (economic and social) of the target state.
How is that different from the democracy promotion programs?
When you look at the progression from the subsidiary alliance to the doctrine of British paramountcy to the doctrine of lapse, where what was touted as an alliance bore the seeds of colonial conquest, albeit, in altruistic language, you are forced to wonder about how the fundamental character of “democracy promotion” programs that end up in the destruction of the targeted states while the West, specifically America, gets the minerals and assets from those states.
Let’s just take the example of what happened in Iraq.
We have dwelled substantially on how “Democracy Promotion” is used by the US, via an institutional framework led by the National Endowment for Democracy to subvert other nation-states for its foreign policy objectives.
Also read: https://www.drishtikone.com/drishtikone-newsletter-354-2/
This article originally appeared on drishtikone.com on February 19th, 2023 republished here with edited title as part of content sharing agreement via smart4bharat.com
Featured image sourced from internet
- Kerala temple painted in Pakistani flag’s color; Several Islamists on festival organizing panel - March 21, 2023
- Unsung WOMEN WARRIORS of India - March 9, 2023
- More Instances Of DMK Leaders Peddling Hate Against North Indians - March 7, 2023