Scott Howard, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2021, 331pp.
K R Bolton
American scholar Professor Richard B. Spence contends that there is a crucial difference between “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy fact,” and that it is an essential part of scholarship to “connect the dots.” (Spence, Wall Street & the Russian Revolution, Trine Day LLC 2017) British scholar Niall Ferguson states, conversely, that there are no conspiracies but “informal,” albeit powerful, “networks,” “struggling for world power,” yet despite his intentions he arrives at the same place as “conspiracists”. For example, he shows how Nelson Mandela was sold on a “free market economy” and globalization, at a Davos conference. (Ferguson, The Square & the Tower, Penguin Books, 2017).
Perhaps there are “networks” that form conspiracies’? Is the Mafia or is it not, a “criminal conspiracy” comprising networks of “families”? Did it not begin centuries ago among impoverished Sicilian peasants as hill banditry, and has come to span the world, having far reaching tentacles in business and politics? There are “criminal conspiracies” recognized in courts of law. Is not the Church of Scientology portrayed by the mainstream media to be a far-reaching cultic conspiracy? Yet when it comes to bankers, Freemasons, Zionists… how could any of these possibly form “conspiracies,” scoff journalists and academics? Suddenly any such suggestions become “false news,” “simplification of complex issues,” and “paranoia,” and the very term “conspiracy theory” is enough for the borderline retards who infest academia and media to shut down any discussion without further ado.
Well, even if we ignore the scholarship of academics such as Carroll Quigley (Georgetown, Harvard); Antony Sutton (Hoover); Richard B. Spence; and Mark L. Mirabella (Shawnee State University), who remarked that “conspiracies and secret societies are older than recorded history” (Foreword to Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements, Black House Publishing, 2017), we are still left with Dr. Ferguson’s “networking” model, and he is a scholar sufficiently trusted among these globalist “networks” to be invited to the Bilderberg conferences.
In The Open Society Playbook, Scott Howard names and describes networks aplenty, intricately and globally interlocked. As I well know, such networks become so widespread and interconnecting, that they give the impression of infinity, and one must eventually call “stop” on a task in tracing them.
The job of the researcher in writing any such study is therefore to provide sufficient evidence and examples on the operations and aims of these networks, “connecting the dots,” to provide the basis for others to research further. That is, after all, traditionally one of the premises of what is called “scholarship.” This Howard achieves with an abundance of primary sources, including appendices of membership lists showing who precisely connects to what. What emerges is an array of NGOs, think tanks, funds, foundations, corporations, and lobbies; what is collectively called “civil society,” yet despite their plenitude, Howard observes that they represent comparatively few players in a game of smoke and mirrors that gives the impression of speaking for the masses of the world.
Open Society –Euphemism for Enchained Dystopia
Howard shows that these interlinked networks aim to create a “new world order” through the globalisation of capital, labour, and resources, which they call an “open society,” the name of George Soros’s own network that plays a leading role in changing governments and shaping minds, using the facades of “democracy,” and “human rights.”
While conformists in journalism, academia and politics scoff, the globalists are relatively open in their aims and methods, arrogantly confident that most people will not “connect the dots” and see what lays behind their “philanthropy” and “corporate responsibility.” This “open society” is named after the philosopher Karl Popper’s book The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) which has provided the rationalisation for the globalist oligarchy (Howard, p. 2). This is to a significant extent an “open conspiracy,” and before the ridicule comes from retarded elements of the press and academia objecting that this is an oxymoron, one might consider the title of a book by novelist and historian H. G. Wells, a prominent Fabian, called The Open Conspiracy, in which he outlines plans for propagating the ideal of a world state in ways that closely accord with what has been unfolding. Yet suggesting that such conspiracies exist is liable to get one smeared, and banned from the book market, the fate of Howard’s prior book The Transgender Industrial Complex (p. 2), as have many other books, to which I might add my own, Zionism, Islam and the Middle East (Black House, 2014).
“Vast matrix of organizations”
What any competent researcher will find when investigating the processes of globalization is what Howard calls a “vast matrix of organizations,” pursuing what he aptly terms “weaponizing philanthropy” through tax exempt foundations, and NGOs interacting with the UNO and government agencies such as USAID. Of the nexus between “civil society” and the USA Howard cites Soros as stating in 2005 that his “open society” network has the same objectives as the U.S. State Department. (p. 3). It is a relationship that operates above even the U.S. presidency, as the failed attempt by Trump to reverse some major aspects of U.S. globalist foreign, military and trade policies showed.
Howard begins with an examination of Soros whose agendas are among the most flagrant. He cites Soros as stating that his globalist program begun prior to the subversion of the ex-Soviet states, with a campaign against apartheid-era South Africa. Apartheid is antithetical to an “open society,” or what the globalists euphemistically call an “inclusive economy.” Yet those who are often called “conservatives” condemn Apartheid as “divisive” and advocate a “one nation” doctrine that is just another name for the “melting pot,” seeing separate identities as being a plot by the “left” to divide nations thorough “identity politics.” The pseudo-right in its infatuation with the free market, joins hands with oligarchs such as Soros, Rockefeller, and Oppenheimer. The pseudo-right cannot see the difference between contrived, artificial “identities,” as per left-wing “identity politics,” where gender and ethnicity have suddenly become “fluid,” and organic, authentic identities. They just see the need for an “inclusive” market place of labour and consumption. Any dissent is regarded as akin to a communist plot against the “free market.” It was Harry F. Oppenheimer, SA’s leading oligarch, who stated that his aim in opposing Afrikaner nationalism and its apartheid doctrine, was to “create a vast new consuming public.” The pseudo-right sees that as laudable and is grateful to Mandela for privatizing rather than communizing SA’s economy.
Because the pseudo-right can only see through the spectacles of economics, the collapse of the Soviet bloc is heralded as a great victory. Hence, did the Soviet bloc fall or was it pushed? The Right unsurprisingly was quick to see the passing of the Soviet bloc as proof of the failure of “Marxism.” But it is here that the strategies of globalist subversion were perfected and played out.
The objection to “Marxism” seldom went beyond a question of economic systems.
Under Gorbachev’s “glasnost” (Gorbachev subsequently becoming a celebrity among the globalist elite) the USSR and the whole Soviet bloc were opened up to Western cultural pathologies. NGOs, led by the Soros network, crowded in, and with the help of USAID, the Congressionally–funded National Endowment for Democracy, and a multitude of others, new leadership cadres were trained (p. 14). Where regimes were slow to introduce the “open society” “colour revolutions,” after intricate planning, training and massive funding, “spontaneously” (sic) erupted to install governments that would acquiesce to globalist agendas, including estrangement from Russia, and integration into NATO and the E.U. Those who resisted, such as Milosevic in Yugoslavia, could be disposed of with resort to military intervention in the name of “democracy” and “human rights,” including the “democratic right” to privatize and globalize Yugoslavia’s economy as a primary NATO war aim.
This symbiosis between Soros and the USA is indicated by Soros having acquired the research unit of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 1994, although these are still funded by the USA. (p. 8).
The “Arab Spring” was the extension of the globalist agenda using “colour revolution,” (p. 25) albeit with varying results, but the populist “Yellow Vests” in France was the type of genuine spontaneous revolt of the type that causes alarm rather than jubilation among the globalist oligarchy, as it is not susceptible to control or direction, and also caused alarm among France’s Leftist intelligentsia. Without oligarchic resources of the type given to the Left, the Yellow Vest revolt fizzled.
U.S. – Globalist symbiosis
While U.S. politicians and journalists wax indignant about alleged, albeit elusive, “Russian interference” in the politics of other states, the globalist network works assiduously to interfere in the affairs of states world-wide, with a close working relationship with U.S. state agencies, such as USAID, State Department, and CIA.
Howard quotes Allen Weinstein, when vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, as stating in 1991 that a lot of what NED was doing was formerly done by the CIA. (p. 28).
While halfwits and dupes in academia and media can scoff at “conspiracy theories,” this rather “open conspiracy” can be studied and analyzed by a rather astounding recourse that probably does not occur to journalists and academics: read the NED website and particularly the annual financial reports. Whatever NED and other such NGOs might or might not be hiding, there is a multitude of public documentation to show the extent of their activities throughout the world. The reader might quickly conclude that for Russia to be accused of “political interference” when the U.S. partners with such a vast globalist network to interfere not just in politics, but also in journalism, education, arts, economics, labour, business, ethnic relations, gender, and even morals and religion, is pure chutzpah. Youth are trained as cadres who can be turned out on the streets if required, and political party leaders and organisers and trained. (p. 33). “Democratic politics” and party apparatus in the new “open societies” are the creation of NED, Freedom House, USAID, Soros, ad infinitum.
While oligarchs had used the traditional empires to gain access to the markets and resources of the far corners of the world, after World War II these empires lay in ruins, indebted to the banking houses, and international finance had shifted center from The City of London to Wall Street, just as the center had previously shifted from Amsterdam to The City. Empire had become a hindrance rather than a harbinger of international finance. The era of globalization proceeded from the demise of the imperial era. Capitalism had become international, as Marx approvingly stated it would. The USA pushed decolonization onto the war-torn imperial powers post-1945 (see: Bolton, Babel Inc., pp. 41-77) to fill the void with their Wall Street neo-colonialism. This was pursued behind the façade of “aid”, with the African-American Institute, founded in 1953, training the post-colonial leadership strata. Such institutions work in conjunction with oligarchic funds and U.S. state agencies. USAID is particularly significant, working with the Soros network, NED et al.
These NGO and U.S. state organizations work together to foment “colour revolutions.” Howard traces these with detail. In 2000 Serbia was subjected to a “Bulldozer Revolution” to oust Milosevic. Youth were mobilized to vote against him, and NED, USAID and the International Republican Institute sponsored civil disobedience training. (, p. 64). The Ukraine has long been of special interest to Soros et al. Here the Soros presence is called the International Renaissance Foundation, with an annual budget of $12,000,000. (p. 67). Those states aligned with Russia have been subjected to incessant political interference from “civil society” acting with U.S. state agencies.
When Uzbekistan banned these organizations the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development suspended loans. (p. 70). Russia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, and Belarus (where a “Tulip Revolution” failed), have also purged themselves of this “civil society,” and many NGOs have been prohibited for being agents of a foreign power, with the predictable outcries of this being “undemocratic” and against “human rights.”
Howard shows the extent of this subversion in the world news media. Indeed, the annual financial reports of organizations such as NED show the vast amounts expended on creating what is cynically called “independent media development.” Organizations are created and funded to train journalists to pursue the globalist agenda through, for example, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which is partnered with The N.Y. Times, Washington Post, Guardian, etc. (Appendix C). To refer to “investigative journalism” is pure slap-stick.
Others include the Open Access Project U.K., funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation (p. 74), and the Global Forum for Media Development. These are among an array of interconnected organizations designed to direct news and information, the farcical “fact checking” phenomenon being a blatant example, involving NGOs of the Soros type, government agencies through USAID and the State Department, and the likes of Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.
Migrants as pawns
A chapter on “demographic warfare” documents the use of migration and multiculturalism, with the U.N. global compact on migration being a salient example. This necessitates the prohibition of what is called “xenophobia and racism,” a euphemism for any defensive action of a targeted ethnicity (generally White). Hence, “hate speech,” “human rights,” and “race relations” laws are introduced and enhanced in increasingly draconian manner to silence dissent. Anything of a populist character is liable to suppression as “hate speech.” Even criticism of Soros’s activities is called “anti-Semitism” by the bought media and others.
The sponsoring of “refugees” into the White states can be undertaken in the name of “humanitarianism.” Again there is an array of globalist organizations to facilitate such population shifts. This is what the UNO calls “replacement migration,” referring to the ageing populations of Europe, and the need to replenish these with Third World migration. It might be recalled that when European identitarians call the same process “the great replacement,” they are accused of “false news” and “hate speech” by the controlled media and are even banned.
Again, there is U.S. state involvement, and the State Department has formed numerous refugee settlement organizations in Europe (p. 108). Resettlement funds are provided by the World Bank, Gates Foundation, Sony, Microsoft, UPS, Vodafone Foundation, et al through the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). “Labour migration” is funded from Rwanda into Canada, Poland and Slovakia. Howard cites many other organizations facilitating the migrant shift, such as Unbound Philanthropy, operating in the USA and U.K., which donates to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is partnered with the Open Society Foundations, Ford and others, as part of a Pop Culture collaborative. This latter is formed to “leverage the reach and power of pop culture in service to social change goals.” This in turn has collaborated with the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, IBM, Starbucks, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, etc. (p. 138).
Howard shows the manner by which mobile phones play a significant role in facilitating refugee migration, with a primary element being that migrants should have prompt access to credit cards. Welcome to the world of Western usury. In 2015 Soros and Mastercard created Humanity Ventures; the year previously Mastercard created Mastercard Aid Network to service migrants in a grand humanitarian gesture. (p. 154).
For Howard the central factor is the “Zionist establishment,” in an axis with the USA and Wahhabist Islam. I consider this to be a factor, rather than the dominant factor.
Howard points to the Rivkin memo, a programme outlined by U.S. Ambassador Charles Rivkin on how to both secularize (Americanize) and use Muslim youth in France to undermine that nation’s sense of identity. (p. 196). Selling susceptible – uprooted – youths what Yockey called culture-distortion, especially in the form of so-called “hip hop diplomacy,” (Bolton, Babel Inc., pp.227-241) is part of this process, identified as one of the benefits of American democracy. “Hip hop is America,” as Hilary Clinton put it, and is a continuation of the “culture-war” (as it is called) that promoted Jazz and Abstract Expressionism via the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom during the Cold War.
Howard points to an axis between Zionism and the most extreme form of Islam, Wahhabism, which happens to be the dominant form of Islam among the USA’s closest Emirate allies, while the states that are targeted for destruction (Gadhafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, present day Iran and Syria) have been the states fighting Wahhabism. In Iran a “colour revolution” was attempted in 2009. It was a familiar theme: aided by the Emirate states, a youth network was formed. The Iranian Government not surprisingly recognized that it was modelled after those in the ex-Soviet bloc, and hence of outside instigation. The aim has long been to balkanize the Middle East and North Africa, with implications for the destabilization of Russia; by agitating tribal, ethnic and religious factionalism. Putin charged the USA with funding Chechen rebels. Certainly the use of Muslim extremists and ethnic agitation was apparent in ex-Yugoslavia for all to see.
A further development is a bastardous alliance forming between Zionism and Islamic interests, again sponsored by Emirate states. In 2016 a summit was held between Jews and Muslims, with Saudi funding. In this new dialogue, the commonality is that of fighting anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. There is also Zionist support for Middle Eastern refugees, such as the Jewish Coalition for Syrian refugees, sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League. It is a familiar theme: create the problem; offer the solution. As I have documented in the suppressed book Zionism, Islam and the West, and in a series at Arktos Journal, Islamophobia emanates not from the “far right” but from Zionist and pro-Israeli organizations, who have supported the pseudo-right, such as that of Geert Wilders and Tommy Robinson. This Zionist-Muslim dialogue was manifested in New Zealand after the murderous Tarrant rampage, with the Islamic Federation citing as sources in its submissions on “hate speech” to Parliament the Anti-Defamation League; although when a “hate speech” summit was held, rather than manifesting multicultural peace and love, there was acrimony between the Muslim and the Jewish delegates; a more accurate reflection of reality than cynical manipulations. However, there seems to be a strata of Islamic leadership that is eager to embrace the Zionist enemy to their advantage.
Howard proceeds to document the Zionist role in promoting the refugee and “great replacement,” although Israel is notable in its refusal to accept any such migration, and while Zionists lobbies have pushed for the acceptance of the U.N. global compact on migration by all other states, Israel has refused to do so, citing the same objections for which the European indentitarians and other White dissidents have been smeared and outlawed. The long-established Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, and the World Jewish Congress are among those in the forefront of working with U.S. Government agencies and globalist NGOs such as Human Right Watch, Ford Foundation, Soros network … in promoting demographic shifts. LGBTIQ+ migrants are of added interest in this process. (p. 214).
Howard concludes with an examination of the central role of Israel in international crime, and particularly narcotics and “white slavery.” Israel has long been the ecstasy capital of the world, (p. 251). Howard documents the alliance between Israeli crime syndicates and Central American drug cartels. Money laundering and smuggling are a feature among Orthodox Jews, including students and rabbis. This also reaches governmental levels with the Mossad having been a mainstay of support for Noriega in Panama, and Mossad supplying arms and training to drug cartels in Guatemala and Costa Rica. Israel-based crime syndicates dominate the ecstasy markets in Europe and the USA.
Of “white slavery,” girls especially from the ex-Soviet bloc states are lured to Israel, where they are forced into prostitution. The so-called Russian mafiya is far from “Russian” dominated.
Organ trafficking is another lucrative trade in which Israel has a deep connection, with organ harvesting among the poor of Moldova, Eastern Europe, Kosovo, Turkey, Costa Rica, South Africa, Brazil and Palestine. Israeli authorities take little interest, as they do with “white slavery.”
Of this Zionist connection with organized crime, there has been a long association. Meyer Lansky of the National Crime Syndicate, for example, ran guns to the Haganah before Israel was established. Other mobsters have been honoured as exemplary Jews by major Jewish organizations. Even in the days of Murder Inc. there was a predominance of distinctly non-Italian names.
Ultimately the whole globalist project can be described as a criminal enterprise, aiming to coalesce the world, in the name of “human rights” and “democracy” into a world state, where labour, technology, resources and capital can be moved about like chess pieces – mostly pawns – by master-players. The Jeffrey Epstein network gave a glimpse on the character of such power-brokers, and the corruption their affluence brings, whether as technocrats, financiers or debased royals. What of that “conspiracy theory”?
Howard’s focus is on presenting documentation, with an abundance of quotes, documents, appendices, and lists. It is a method that I use for my own books, my contention (and I suspect Howard’s) being that one is attempting to prove one’s case, not showcase one’s personal literary style. The Open Society Playbook is on that account a very valuable resource on the many facets of globalization and the forces behind those who seek to establish a new world order from the chaos they generate. This they see as the birth-pangs of their brave new world; a utopia for the few; a dystopia for around 99% of the rest.
Antelope Hill Publishing is a professional, enthusiastic new project which, along with several others, is at last providing the hitherto resource-starved Anglophone Right with translations from the best of European thought, and the research of new writers.