Powerful actors continue to fund NGOs to manipulate political systems and destabilize sovereignty, manufacturing the illusion of dissent.

By Virag GULYAS

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

History can only be understood by looking in the rearview mirror. And tragically, the same is true when we are trying to understand in retrospect whether a leader of a country was making a strategic move against all odds, or if he was just riding his own narratives. It seems now that Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, did the former when, years ago, he warned that George Soros’ actions raise plenty of red flags.

Though it was Russia, in 2015, that first listed two branches of Soros’s network (Open Society Foundations and Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation) as ‘undesirable’ organizations, effectively banning their activities and grants inside Russia, Hungary and others followed suit shortly. In 2018, following the first wave of illegal immigration into Europe, Hungary passed the so-called Soros Law. A law that was misinterpreted by some large Jewish organizations and was, without doubt, purposefully mischaracterized by the European Union—the very Union whose mission is to protect its member states’ interests. But, as so often, the EU chose another path.

Instead of looking carefully at Orbán’s concerns, or at least scrutinizing the money flows of immigrant-supporting NGOs, the EU doubled down on what today can be called anti-Hungarianism. The matrix here is larger than Hungary, and we can only wonder: seven years down the road, would the EU still argue that the Soros Law—designed to curb immigration and restrict the activities of civil society organizations supporting mass illegal migration—violated EU law? Or, seeing the daily news on the countless sexual assaults on women and girls across Europe, would the EU now argue that not having an EU-wide ‘Soros Law’ violates human rights and women’s rights? This latter scenario, unfortunately, should be relegated to the realm of fantasy.

The question remains: was Orbán wrong about Soros and merely spreading right-wing propaganda, or was he absolutely correct?

As the adage says, to get to the truth, follow the money. And if we do, the conclusion is clear: Orbán was right. Soros funds countless organizations undermining national sovereignty, all aiming for one thing: destabilizing the system. The destabilizing attempts come from multiple directions. For example, UN-accredited NGOs whose goal is to delegitimize Israel and legitimize Hamas at the United Nations share common sources of funding: the Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

It is no different when it comes to the money flow behind the recent ‘No Kings’ marches that, as per estimates, garnered 5 million protesters. All that organically, they claim. But who really finances the absurdly named No Kings marches that ‘aimed’ to de-crown the un-crowned—in fact, democratically elected—POTUS?

It is generally known, even from the mainstream media, that the No Kings actions were organized by a broad progressive coalition, consisting of such actors as Indivisible, trade unions, and various civil rights and civic organizations. But the funding came from three main sources:

1. Large progressive foundations like George Soros’s Open Society network providing multi-million-dollar support to Indivisible and similar organizations.

2. Trade unions and advocacy groups such as AFT, SEIU, and CWA contributing through member mobilization and logistical support.

3. Small donations and volunteer work; that is, local-level fundraising and participation.

The largest element in the No Kings Marches is the Indivisible Project.  According to their 2023 annual report, they “closed the year in a stable financial position, thanks to consistent grassroots support, the strong backing of institutional donors, and careful management of resources.” They offer a GROW Grant program for local groups and provide opportunities for online community fundraising (“Distributed Fundraising”), where local organizations collect funds, apply, and get reimbursed. According to OpenSecrets, the sources of their Political Action Committee (PAC) expenditures in the 2024 cycle were: “PACs: 99.93%, individuals: 0.07%.” What is already shady is the phrase “strong support of institutional donors”—it is vague. Which foundations? What amounts?

According to Open Society Foundations’ grant records, the organization has awarded Indivisible approximately $7.6 million in grants between 2017 and 2023, designated to support the organization’s social welfare activities and civic engagement. These financial contributions from OSF have enabled Indivisible to expand its reach and impact, facilitating its efforts in organizing and mobilizing communities across the United States. And that includes the No Kings Marches.

Then we have the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). According to their website: “Our work is financed by membership fees, contributions from private individuals, and support from private foundations.” One of their briefings states, “Beyond membership fees, ACLU’s operations are supported annually by over $50 million in donations from individuals and foundations. We do not receive government funding.” However, other sources indicate major contributions from foundations such as the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the infamous Rockefeller Foundation. It is also a fact that in 2014, the Open Society Foundation granted the ACLU a $50 million grant to support its nationwide campaigns.

It is worth taking a look at MoveOn (MoveOn.org) too. According to their own statement: “MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by small donations—the average donation is about $20. We do not accept money from the government or corporations.” Their 2023 report claims that “MoveOn.org Civic Action receives hundreds of thousands of donations annually; the average donation is $19.” That sounds good, but according to InfluenceWatch—and even their own website—MoveOn supports left-wing/progressive causes and candidates, and major donors (e.g., George Soros) are also directly connected to it.  In fact, in 2024, the Open Society Action Fund gave $1,000,000 to the organization.

And lastly, there is Social Security Works. According to their website, “Social Security Works is funded by individual donations and various foundation support, including the Open Society Foundations, Retirement Research Foundation, CREDO, and the Civic Participation Action Fund. The organization was originally founded with generous support from Atlantic Philanthropies.”

This is why neither Orbán nor Trump—the latter requesting that federal prosecutors investigate George Soros—can be accused of using Soros as a convenient scapegoat: The money trail demonstrates that Soros’s support actively opposes sovereignty.

Yet, here is where the next layer of perversion comes in: the same European cities that condemned Orbán’s legislation became hosts to rallies supporting the No Kings movement. From London to Madrid, thousands gathered waving signs declaring “No Kings, No Fascists” under banners coordinated by local chapters of Indivisible’s international solidarity network.

What was an organic protest in appearance was, in reality, a carefully orchestrated political intervention. The same agencies Orbán warned about—foreign-funded NGOs, foundation-backed movements—were replicated in Europe under the guise of grassroots activism. There is no grassroots movement that can harmonize the large-scale event logistics, from printed placards to synchronized social media amplification that we saw during the No Kings Marches. Indivisible’s own playbook, distributed to European partners, included scripts for chants, media talking points, and even suggested hashtags (#NoKingsInternational)—all traceable to training sessions bankrolled by OSF’s Open Society Policy Center.

The pattern is clear: powerful actors fund NGOs to manipulate political systems and destabilize sovereignty. The perversion is not just the rallies themselves but the illusion of organic dissent—an engineered narrative presented as spontaneous, yet meticulously coordinated behind the scenes. What the public saw as righteous outrage was, in truth, a transnational influence operation dressed in the clothing of democracy.

All these developments demonstrate that Orbán’s early warnings were not paranoia. The destabilizing forces he resisted then are visible in Europe today, and the evidence, when you follow the money, is undeniable.

Original article: europeanconservative.com