In the Spaghetti Western classic "For a Few Dollars More, Lee Van Cleef and Clint Eastwood execute the classic “one from the inside, one from the outside” strategy. Van Cleef persuades Eastwood to infiltrate the gang and sabotage it from within, while he operates from the outside. To ensure the ruse appears convincing, Van Cleef even shoots Eastwood in the ear, creating a superficial wound that dispels any suspicion.
George Soros (Image credit: Technical University of Munich)
This tactic is often mirrored in the left-liberal political arena. Take the Mumbai 26/11 incident, for instance. While one group of liberal “activists” engaged in direct actions, such as the brutal shooting of innocent civilians, another group propagated conspiracy theories to shield them and shift blame. Thanks to the bravery of Tukaram Omble, their ploy was exposed—despite attempts to mislead, like the kalawa (sacred Hindu red thread) on Kasab’s hand. If not for Omble’s intervention, today’s Wikipedia “history,” authored by Stalinist propagandists, might have absurdly labeled the attack an RSS operation—similar to how we’re told the Godhra train compartment mysteriously ignited itself.
A similar game is at play in the George Soros saga unfolding in contemporary India. On one side, fake activists and pseudo-liberals align with the billionaire speculator’s agenda and the deep-state woke machinery. On the other, another group operates externally, offering “certifications” to dismiss concerns. They argue there’s no such thing as the deep state, portraying Soros as a harmless 94-year-old incapable of harming India. This narrative conveniently ignores that his son, Alexander Soros, is far from a frail elder. A staunch woke activist, Alexander is married to Huma Abedin, who has faced (and denied) allegations of links to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin is deeply connected to the Clinton-Democrat-MSM ecosystem, which staunchly defends her, further entrenching the influence of this powerful nexus.
Another familiar argument resurfaces here—the notion that if India is so vulnerable that George Soros can undermine our system, then the real issue lies with our weakness, not with Soros himself. It's reminiscent of the liberal refrain: "So what if they insult Lord Ram or Hindus? Are we so fragile?" Yet, the same reasoning is rarely applied to those who protest against offensive cartoons. Even a seasoned journalist like Tavleen Singh, who is neither left-leaning nor part of any internal or external conspiracy, echoes this sentiment, stating, "So what if Soros attempts to sabotage?"
Let's Explore This Further
A good starting point is when the woke left isn't the perpetrator but instead portrays itself as the victim, always claiming to stand on the side of truth. Let’s examine the standards they've set for others and see if we can apply their own criteria to them.
Tulsi Gabbard has faced criticism for "echoing Kremlin's geopolitical views" and "repeating Russian talking points," even accused of "amplifying Russian propaganda" and worse. This backlash stems from her opposition to the warmongering deep state and the military-industrial complex. She opposes U.S. intervention in other countries and the expenditure of funds on regime change efforts – a legitimate stance for an American politician, regardless of agreement. The consequences of such policies are evident for all to see. Yet, it's rare to find a left-leaning article that doesn't include one or more of these phrases regularly. I won't insult your intelligence by providing links, as you can easily Google "Gabbard parroting" and see the evidence yourself.
Let's examine the "evidence" that proponents of the "Russian interference" narrative have for the alleged meddling in the 2016 elections, which supposedly helped elect Trump. A Washington Post op-ed even stated that "it succeeded in a way Russia could never have predicted." Essentially, this suggests that Americans—citizens of the world's most powerful democracy, educated and generally earning at least $30,000 annually, if not much more—were somehow tricked by Putin into voting for Trump.
They set up a "troll farm" of social media accounts that "pretended to be American." According to Wikipedia, "470 Facebook accounts were created by Russians"—considering Facebook has over 2.9 billion users, that 400+ is quite a significant figure!
Russian media articles—this is no joke. We're being told to believe that reading Russian articles led Americans to vote for Trump.
Leaking emails! If those emails aren't embarrassing, why go through the trouble of leaking them?
Undermining public trust in the democratic process—does that sound familiar?
Elon Musk faces intense criticism for openly declaring himself a Trump supporter, yet business donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates rarely experience the same backlash. If you read coverage from mainstream left-leaning media outlets, such as the NYT or WaPo, you'll see the animosity directed at Musk for simply doing what many businessmen do—supporting various politicians, often from both parties.
The fact that Elon allegedly spoke with Putin is being discussed as if it were an act of treason!
In leftist media, it's common to see the phrase "who has admired Putin" tacked onto any reference to Trump and Russia, as if even offering a simple diplomatic compliment to Putin is a moral transgression. While Russia and the US have been rivals, even the left doesn't accuse Russians of using terrorists to target US civilians on American soil. Yet, they expect us to be cordial with Pakistan and allow their cricketers to profit on our circuits.
The same wealthy donors, who contributed a modest $1 million to Trump's inauguration celebrations, are now tied to possible favors and avoiding consequences, among other things!
As observed, the US left tends to set relatively low standards for their own actions. According to liberal ideals, one could easily accuse Rahul Gandhi of being another Tulsi Gabbard just for echoing views commonly expressed by Pakistan, or even more troubling, by terrorist groups and Khalistani supporters.
If the world's most powerful military state and democracy can be compromised by a country weakened by years of ironically leftist economic policies and reduced to near insignificance, then surely the $1 billion set aside by Soros for regime change operations in the third world (including India) can buy significant influence.
If a few hundred “troll accounts” are taken seriously enough to suggest foreign interference in India, what about “activist” accounts and YouTube channels openly funded by George Soros, Omidyar, the Ford Foundation, and backed by the US Embassy? Do these not have millions of followers?
If supporting Putin disqualifies a politician, does supporting Palestine or Pakistan carry the same weight?
If Elon Musk's ties to Trump are a concern, why is George Soros’ relationship with Yunus, not to mention Rahul Gandhi and his BJ Yatra associates in India, overlooked?
If Russian media writing articles is seen as a threat, how do we view the extensive anti-Modi propaganda produced by outlets like the NYT, BBC, WaPo, and Al-Jazeera?
If a series of Facebook posts and articles can cause chaos in a superpower and its democratic institutions, as liberals themselves argue, it’s easy to see the power of propaganda. Especially when you consider that Russia, already discredited, lacks the woke influence to alter Wiki pages or censor content on platforms like YouTube, Google, Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. And yet, the Western media that serves the interests of the woke establishment is often hailed as the gold standard of independent journalism—supposedly upholding truth, shining light where it’s needed, and protecting democracy.
The billions spent to influence third-world leaders and sycophants willing to follow the West’s narrative can buy enough propaganda to undermine almost any nation. On top of that, there are those, like in Bollywood or Hollywood, who hope their propaganda will attract the financial backing of the woke ecosystem, swelling the ranks of their message. We’ve seen a rise in low-quality YouTube channels dedicated to attacking Modi and praising dynasties known for corruption, each trying to outdo the other in crudeness and sensationalism to gain attention.
In fact, common sense tells us that the alleged connections between George Soros and Rahul Gandhi, the opposition leader in India, are far more substantial than the Trump-Russia links, if we apply the same standards that liberals in the woke world use. One of these is a proven hoax. The Democrats launched a full investigation into the Trump-Russia claims, spent millions, and still couldn’t bring forth a single charge worth pursuing, let alone convict Trump.
We’ve never even investigated the connections between Soros and the left legally. Perhaps we should. I’d suggest appointing a respected retired judge with an adequate budget, just like the Mueller investigation. I’m confident it would yield better results. But as soon as Modi attempts such a move, all hell will break loose, with accusations of “weaponizing law enforcement”—a tactic liberals themselves use.
The coordinated attacks on Modi in both social media and mainstream outlets, along with the targeting of Indian businesses like the Adani Group—companies that invest long-term in infrastructure and challenge China’s global business dominance—by leftist “activists” and political dynasties, should concern all Indians, just as the liberals demand concern over “Russian interference” in the U.S. elections.
We must hold Rahul Gandhi to the same standards that the woke crowd applies to Trump, Gabbard, and Musk. Sharing a stage, saying a kind word, or meeting anyone linked to Soros, Ford, Omidyar, or anyone funded by them should be considered almost unforgivable. This should be emphasized every time their name is mentioned—something liberal media never forgets to do.
The moment Rahul Gandhi echoes Pakistan’s talking points, we should treat it as an act of treason! Is that fair or acceptable? Of course, it must be, because that’s exactly how they treat others.
If any journalist claims that India is too powerful to be influenced by Soros, we should remind them of the leftist media’s obsession with Putin and Russia. They are simply parroting Soros’ talking points, and thus, by their own logic, should be viewed with suspicion. We are far weaker than the U.S., and perhaps we should adopt the tactics of the woke crowd and question the loyalties, funding, and motivations of such individuals.
As I keep saying, there’s much to learn from the left. Ignoring that would be foolish.
Comments