Crashing Sovereign currencies while getting rich and helping to advance the One World Money system along the way. Nice guy.
George Soros made almost $1 billion since November from bets that the yen would tumble, according to a person close to the billionaire’s $24 billion family office.
The Japanese wager helped the firm return about 10 percent last year and 5 percent so far this year, said the person, who asked not to be named because the firm is private. The yen has weakened 17 percent versus the dollar since about the start of the fourth quarter, the worst performance over a similar period since 1985.
George Soros, founder of Soros Fund Management LLC, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 25, 2013. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) — Billionaire investor George Soros talks about the European sovereign-debt crisis, inflation risk and his Open Society Foundations. He speaks with Francine Lacqua at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. (Source: Bloomberg)
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — Billionaire investor George Soros talks about Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s policy measures and the potential impact of austerity on the region’s economies. He speaks with Bloomberg Television’s Erik Schatzker on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. (Source: Bloomberg)
The yen slumped and Japanese stocks rallied as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pressed the Bank of Japan to introduce additional stimulus measures. BOJ Governor Masaaki Shirakawa and two deputies will step down next month, allowing Abe to pick leaders to implement his plan for expanded monetary easing.
Scott Bessent, chief investment officer at New York-based Soros Fund Management LLC, also has 10 percent of the firm’s internally managed portfolio betting on rising shares in Japan, said the person. Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 stock index has jumped about 28 percent since the end of September.
Bessent worked for Soros in 1992 when Soros and his chief strategist Stan Druckenmiller made a $10 billion bet that the Bank of England would be forced to devalue the pound. That wager netted $1 billion. At the time Soros’s Quantum fund was $3.3 billion.
Bessent left the firm in 2000, and returned to be CIO in 2011.
Michael Vachon, a spokesman for the firm, said he couldn’t comment on the trades, which were reported yesterday by the Wall Street Journal.
Global Corporate-Financier Mafia Grows New Tentacle: Global Tax Collectors.
by Tony Cartalucci
May 10, 2012 – The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a 50 year old network constituting what is often known as the “West,” has been the premier promoter of expanding corporate-financier hegemony across the planet. Done under the guise of “progressive” initiatives, claiming to “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world,” it is demonstratively run by the most explicit examples of institutions and individuals impeding such lofty goals.
Not least amongst them is convicted criminal George Soros and his “Open Society Institute.” While surely the organization’s rank and file includes a majority of well-intentioned “liberal-progressives,” pursuing and promoting agendas seemingly benign, the reality is that the organization, in tandem with the US State Department and the British Foreign Ministry, is laying the groundwork for a homogeneous global network of administrators for what is literally a neo-imperial empire.
With characters like George Soros and his self-serving institution behind the OECD, Soros having been convicted and fined for insider trading in 2002, a conviction that was more recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights,” it would be laughable for such an enterprise to pose as international arbiters fighting financial fraud. Yet that is exactly what the OECD portends to do – and most recently announced the creation of “Tax Inspectors Without Borders.” Its name invoking the equally well-intentioned, but ultimately fraudulent “Reporters Without Borders,” another Soros-US State Department building block for what is to be a “global empire,” it aims to “to help developing countries bolster their domestic revenues by making their tax systems fairer and more effective.”
In reality it aims at imposing an international standard upon tax collection, and as each nation is financially destroyed by international bankers, IMF loansharking, and foreign-funded destabilization, the austerity measures demanded to be paid in “bailouts” and for “reconstruction” will be managed and coached by the OECD’s new tentacle to ensure every unit of currency ends up in globalist coffers.
Image: OCED nations – also looking suspiciously like Wall Street and London’s sphere of influence and NATO’s membership.
Just as corporate-financier funded “human rights” organizations attempt to create a global homogeneous “civil society” to overwrite the indigenous social institutions of sovereign nation-states, the OECD’s “Tax Inspectors Without Borders” will attempt to create a global homogeneous tax collection system to replace that of sovereign nation-states.
As covered in February 2012′s “Soros Big-Busienss Accountability Project Funded by Big-Business,” there is nothing “international” or “plural” about the coming global government. In reality it is driven by a handful of corporate-financier interests working to consolidate their power over not only finance and industry, but over governments and societies worldwide. This is the natural progression of what banking magnates like JP Morgan, the Rothschilds, Goldman, and the Rockefellers were in the midst of when US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler wrote “War is a Racket,” and is a progression that will continue as long as average people continue feeding on a monthly basis the summation of their work, energy, attention, and income into the corporations and institutions of this growing monopoly.
March 20, 2012 – “U.N.-Arab League envoy” Kofi Annan has claimed over the last several weeks to be backing “peace efforts” in Syria to end the conflict which has lasted over a year now. In reality, it has been revealed that his function is to simply buy time for a collapsing militant front and the creation of NATO-occupied “safe havens” from which further destabilization and “coercive action” can be conducted against the Syrian government.
This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated:
“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
While some may be surprised that “peace envoy” Kofi Annan is essentially lying to both Syria’s government and to the world, with a complicit UN and “Arab League” willfully “in” on the fraud, Annan’s ties with notorious traitors, meddlers, and warmongers indicate that this latest deception is par for the course.
Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski’s International Crisis Group, along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist – General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader – Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution’s Samuel Berger.
Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution, from whose playbook Kofi Annan is being directed in his disingenuous “peace mission” to Syria. (click image to enlarge)
Image: Just some of the corporate and “institutional” sponsors of the
International Crisis Group, upon which Kofi Annan sits as a “trustee” with other dubious personalities including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Egypt’s Mohammed ElBaradei, and Neo-Cons Richard Armitage and Kenneth Adelman. (click image to enlarge)
Serving as “advisers” to the International Crisis Group include, Neo-Conservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres.
It must surely warm the cockles of the Syrian people’s hearts to realize Annan, with direct ties to the Neo-Conservative establishment who has long sought Syria’s destabilization and the Israel government as well as its financial institutions, is so “concerned” about establishing peace in a conflict where Syrian rebels and foreign militants are turning up with US and Israeli weapons in their hands. It must also warm their hearts to see direct admissions from the Brookings Insitution that Annan’s mission is simply to buy time for a faltering foreign-funded rebellion so that it may be preserved and rehabilitated back to full strength under the guise of a “peace deal.”
The fact that Egypt’s ElBaradei, another foreign-backed subversive traitor, as well as Kenneth Adelman, lobbyist for Wall Street proxy Thaksin Shinwatra of Thailand and member of Eldeman public relations, a sponsor of the US State Department’s “Alliance for Youth Movements” who trained equipped and backed the uprising that destabilized Syria to begin with, are involved in ICG’s work indicates that the “International Crisis Group” may indeed be attempting to fulfill its mission statement of “preventing and resolving deadly conflict.” However, that is with the hidden caveat being the conflicts it seeks to resolve have been created by them and their agents in the first place to justify a series of predetermined “solutions.” A case of manufactured problem, corporate-media perception managed reaction, predetermined, self-serving solution.
It then appears, despite the United Nations being stamped upon Annan’s efforts, that he is in fact a direct representative of Western geopolitical ambitions, more specifically those of Wall Street and London. It should be mentioned at this time that the International Crisis Group of which Annan serves as a trustee for, is funded by the following corporate-financier interests:
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Jewish World Watch
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Sigrid Rausing Trust
British Petroleum (BP)
Kimberly- Clark Corporation
Deutsche Bank Group
When considering the Brookings Institution’s admissions that Annan is simply playing a part in the overall strategy to execute long-planned Western-backed regime change in Syria, and the equally impressive array of corporations, banks, and corporate-funded foundations backing Brookings, it is clear that it is corporate-financier interests, not an “international consensus” that is behind the United Nation’s efforts verses Syria. The UN is merely a convenient front lending legitimacy to what is otherwise the naked aggression of foreign military conquest. In fact, the Brrokings Institution admits as much in their report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” where they declare:
“Taking actions without a UN mandate would also likely only add to the unraveling of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, in as much as it emphasizes the need for UN-legitimated authority.” -page 3, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
This of course in the context of outlining the various unilateral actions the US can take to circumvent Russia and China’s objections to meddling in Syria’s sovereign affairs and in essence render moot its own contrived international legal process, as well as an acknowledgement to the flagrant abuse of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine in regards to Libya. The UN is mentioned throughout the report merely as a mechanism for obtaining US interests in the Middle East, a mere pawn rather than a driving factor behind US involvement or any sort of international “responsibility” the US is “altruistically” fulfilling.
The same can then be said of Annan’s function, a mask of legitimacy behind which neo-imperial aggression is being carried out. Already, Annan’s efforts are being matched by NATO-member Turkey’s preparations to establish the sort of militarily occupied “safe haven” in Syrian territory, prescribed in the Brookings report. It is a plot Annan knowingly works in tandem with US-led NATO – a plot whose final objective is the further violent destabilization and overthrow of the sovereign government of Syria – not peace.
Its bad enough having to do the dirty deed with old George…
George Soros offered 250G to scrap lawsuit, angry cousin of his ex-gal pal says
Brazilian actress Adriana Ferreyr is suing mogul for $50 million, saying he reneged on promise to buy her $1.9 million Manhattan flat
By Janon Fisher / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Billionaire George Soros was so eager to stop his ex-gal pal from filing a lawsuit, he offered her cousin $250,000 to persuade her to drop the case, the Daily News has learned.
The cousin says the offer was a bribe; Soros’ lawyer says it was merely an attempt to settle the dispute.
Former Brazilian soap star Adriana Ferreyr, 31, sued Soros, 81, in August after he reneged on a promise to buy her a $1.9 million Manhattan apartment.
The $50 million suit also contained claims of emotional torture, harassment and violence — all denied by the twice-divorced Soros.
When she threatened to take him to court, Soros went to her cousin Mauricio Carneiro, a lawyer, with a cash offer.
“Pursuant to your conversation with George Soros . . . I understand you may wish to be helpful with the situation,” the billionaire’s lawyer William Zabel wrote to Carneiro in an email seen by The News.
Carneiro fired back that he could not be bought. “I was shocked that George called me to offer me $250,000 in order to get my sympathy, get rid of her lawyers and settle the case,”
Carneiro wrote back. “I learned of Mr. Soros’ malicious actions against my cousin and I am shocked by his behavior. Adriana’s character is of the highest order.”
Zabel acknowledged to The News that Soros had reached out to Carneiro, but denied he offered a bribe, saying the sum could have been meant to cover legal fees.
“George had met him before and he liked him,” said Zabel. “He had reached out to him because he is a lawyer and a relative and he hoped to settle the case before it went to court. “It is in no way a bribe.”
Ferreyr and Soros dated for five years, and she says he dangled the promise of a luxury E. 85th St. pad three times.
In August 2010, while they were in bed, Soros told Ferreyr he had finally bought the apartment — for another girlfriend, according court papers.
An argument ensued, and the beauty claims the elderly man choked and slapped her and threw a lamp, cutting her foot.
His lawyer claims Ferreyr broke the lamp. She also claims that he hired goons to follow her around to protect his new girlfriend, Tamiko Bolton, who got the apartment of her dreams.
Soros’ lawyer says Ferreyr’s dramatics are a ruse. “In short, this lawsuit is nothing more than a blatant attempt . . . to extort millions of dollars from Soros with frivolous and publicly disparaging claims,” Zabel said.
We preach “democracy” and practice oligarchy
Vladimir Putin wasn’t the only one with tears in his eyes as he exulted in his presidential election victory and shouted “Glory to Russia!” The entire American punditocracy, to say nothing of the Brits, responded as one with accusations the election had been fixed, confidently predicting a “crackdown” on “dissent” as the Russian leader resumed the office he had never really left.
Yet there is very little to these claims of fraud. Of course, in every election ever held anywhere there have been “irregularities,” such as are commonplace in our very own Chicago. There is some evidence the Russian parliamentary elections were somewhat less than honest – the 99 percent pro-Putin vote in Chechnya, of all places, was particularly suspect – although no one has gone so far as to say Putin’s United Russia party actually lost.
The reality is that Putin is immensely popular in Russia, a fact the English-speaking media only admits with great reluctance. The “dissidents,” who are fawned over by Western journalists, are viewed by Russia’s vast-albeit-silent majority as a tiny faction of professional discontents with dubious motives. Putin has characterized them as professionals in the pay of Washington and London, a charge given credence by some hilarious video of a British diplomat and Russian “democracy activists” who wound up between a rock and a hard place.
“The point of elections is that the outcome should be uncertain. This was not the case in Russia. There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt.”
Senor Picula may be unfamiliar with the details of American electoral history, but was the outcome of every US presidential election from 1936-44 ever in any doubt? “No real competition?” Has Picula looked at the Republican presidential field lately? “Abuse of government resources”? Oh please, spare us the sanctimony: what incumbent hasn’t utilized the power and prestige of incumbency to win reelection? Western politicians hand out goodies to their supporters, and then bus them to the polls on election day: why should we expect a Russian election to be any different? We’re told pro-Putin voters were bussed from polling station to polling station, engaging in “carousel voting,” and yet the Russian election seems relatively clean compared to how the process was conducted in the Iowa and Maine GOP primaries.
This charge of a lack of competition is ironic, given the system we have here in the United States, which effectively ensconces two state-supported and state-subsidized parties, giving them a monopoly on the political process at the state and federal levels. These two parties are, in legal terms, effectively extensions of the state, and they have managed to not only preserve but reinforce their privileged status. If only the OSCE and the “human rights” crowd turned their attention Westward, say to California, where an “top-two” system has effectively banned third parties from the ballot.
What this means is that in San Francisco, for example, where the Democratic party regularly racks up majorities totaling nearly 90 percent of the vote, all the candidates for, say, Congress, regardless of party, will run in the same “primary.” The top two vote-getters will run in the general election – again, regardless of party. In the Bay Area, where the GOP regularly polls around ten percent, it is highly unlikely a Republican candidate will make it to the ballot in the general: it will be Nancy versus some Democrat to her left.
That’s “democracy,” California-style. As for the rest of the country, the situation for “third” parties is nearly as bad, with increasingly restrictive ballot access laws making it impossible to present “dissident” views to the electorate. Yet we don’t hear Human Rights Watch and all the other international do-gooders in the regime-change camp howling about a “crackdown” in the US against “dissidents.” Why is that?
As I write, the results of “Super Tuesday” aren’t in, and yet one wonders how much it really matters. A veritable avalanche of special interest money decided the “election” in advance, and the “winner” will go on to challenge an incumbent who will have a billion in hard and “soft” money from the many who seek favors from the most powerful man on the planet.
Western critics complain the Russian media is a pro-Putin monolith, yet these are privately-owned television and print outlets controlled by corporate interests friendly to the regime. How is that different from our own system, where corporate interests line up behind the two state-sanctioned parties: with George Soros, Goldman Sachs, and GE supporting the Obama-ites, and the Koch brothers, for example, or Rupert Murdoch funding the opposition?
In Russia there is no effective political opposition: the “liberals” are a confused lot, and split into four or five competing parties. Together, these groups make up no more than 10 percent of the electorate, at best. The main opposition parties are openly authoritarian, with the neo-Stalinist Communist Party of the Russian Federation leading the pack, and the “Liberal Democrat” supporters of openly fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky trailing slightly behind. To add to this unsavory mix, the most visible of the anti-Putin activists are the militants of the National Bolshevik Party (NBP), led by virulent nationalist and sometime punk-novelist Eduard Limonov. The National Bolsheviks are a bizarre ultra-nationalist sect prone to violence: their official party symbol is a sinister recapitulation of both Nazi and Soviet emblems. Western accounts of Russian “dissidents” figure Limonov and his followers prominently, and yet somehow fail to mention the NBP advocates the expulsion of all non-Russians and the creation of an authoritarian state with the Leader – Limonov himself, naturally – at its head. In Limonov-land, as he puts it in his manifesto, The Other Russia:
“Boys and girls will be taught to shoot from grenade throwers, to jump from helicopters, to besiege villages and cities, to skin sheep and pigs, to cook good hot food and to write poetry. There will be sportive competitions, fighting, a free combat without rules, running, jumping….
“We will have to leave Russia, to build a nest on the fresh central lands, to conquer them there and to give rise to a new, unseen civilization of free warriors united in an armed community. Roaming the steppes and the mountains, fighting in southern nations.
“Many types of people will have to disappear. Alcoholic uncles Vasias, cops, functionaries and other defective material will die out, having lost their roots in society. The armed community could be called ‘Government of Eurasia.’ Thus the dreams of the Eurasians of the ’30s will be realized. Many people will want to join us. Possibly we will conquer the whole world. People will die young but it will be fun.”
Although one might think no one would take such a person seriously, our Western journalists routinely give his violence-prone followers free publicity, highlighting, for example, a NBP election-eve protest in Moscow. Photos of Limonov’s crazed followers fighting the police were flashed all around the world with news of Putin’s election victory: this was meant to illustrate the official Western narrative, which is that Russia is slipping back into authoritarianism and Putin represents the reincarnation of Stalin.
This contention is beyond absurd. In little more than two decades, the country has emerged from one of the most vicious and bloodthirsty dictatorships in world history, where millions perished in the gulag and a totalitarian ideology was the official doctrine of the state. Seen from this perspective, Russia’s progress toward an open society has been unprecedented: to hold Putin’s Russia to a standard not even the United States can live up to is Western hypocrisy at its most brazen.
Why have the regime-changers and “democracy”-exporters turned their sights on Russia? It’s all about Putin’s independent foreign policy: the Russians have the temerity to block the regime-changers’ plans in Syria and Iran, and Putin routinely berates the NATO powers for acting as if the cold war never ended – as, indeed, for them it hasn’t.
As the US and Britain move against Iran, setting up Tehran for a round of “shock and awe,” the Russians aren’t sitting still for it: they’re sending arms to Iran’s ally, Syria, and calling for mediation with the mullahs. Western leaders are especially nonplussed at Putin’s blunt denunciations of US policy: “They want to control everything,” he told student interlocutors in Tomsk, “sometimes I have the impression the United States doesn’t need allies, it needs vassals.”
Truer words were never spoken. The last thing Western NGOs – and their governmental paymasters – want is a strong, united, and relatively free Russia. They much prefer the corruption and chaos of the Yeltsin years, when a perpetually intoxicated “leader” and his Rasputin-like cronies helped the West and the former communist elite seize the country’s “privatized” assets, and let the nation crumble around them. Putin saved Russia from dissolution, and those who were hoping to pick up the pieces were not at all pleased. This is the reason for years of relentless anti-Russian cold war era propaganda, the charges of “authoritarianism” leveled against a nation emerging from a 70-year-long nightmare, and the revived hype about a Russian “threat.”
The nations of the West should look to clean up their own houses before they go around chastening other countries for allegedly “undemocratic” practices. And if they want to know what or who is the greatest threat to the sovereignty and self-governing aspirations of the world’s peoples, then all they have to do is look into a mirror.