Soroswood: The Intersection of Politics and Hollywood Propaganda, Part 2

[Geee]

Big Hollywood:

Soroswood: The Intersection of Politics and Hollywood Propaganda, Part 2
by Liberty Chick

Perhaps one of the most established venues for the medium of documentary filmmaking is the renowned Sundance Film Festival. For decades, Robert Redford had already been calling Americans apathetic to political propaganda and to issues such as global warming. Once George W. Bush got into office, Redford ratcheted up his rhetoric, and, like Soros, he even starting taking foreign relations into his own hands in some cases.

And so it was no surprise when in 2002, Soros turned over stewardship of his documentary fund to Robert Redford and the Sundance Institute.

As Dr. David Yeagley, an American Indian author and political commentator wrote,

“On September 16, 2002, Robert Redford proudly announced at a press conference that he was launching a Sundance International Documentary Fund with $4.6 million in seed money from George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI). The new fund would underwrite films aimed at “promoting social justice and social change.”

In effect, the Soros Documentary Fund simply changed its name to the Sundance International Documentary Fund. Diane Weyermann, who had directed the “old” fund for Soros, stayed on to direct the “new” fund for Redford.

The deal helped both parties. Redford got access to Soros’ money. Soros got to camouflage his propaganda operation under the apple-pie image of Robert Redford and the respected Sundance label.”

Today, the Soros Documentary Fund now operates under the name Sundance Documentary Fund and is managed by the Sundance Institute. The program provides about $3 million a year in funds to documentary filmmakers. As of 2009, the Fund had provided over 500 grants to projects from 57 countries, according to the Sundance website.

A few of the other documentary films financed by Soros include “Which Way Home” and “My American Dream,” films aimed at achieving amnesty for illegal aliens, and “An American Soldier“, which portrays military recruitment in an aggressive and negative light. The complete list of films funded through the Soros/Sundance Documentary Fund from 1996 to 2008 is lengthy and likely includes others with which you might be familiar. In a piece for Capital Research Center’s Foundation Watch in 2008 titled “George Soros, Movie Mogul: ‘Social Justice’ Cinema and the Sundance Institute“, journalist Rondi Adamson provided an excellent write-up on the Soros – Sundance connection and reviewed a variety of documentaries and other Soros-inspired Hollywood movie slants.

Granted, many of the films may have no political agenda, but it would be naïve to assume that the shared goals of like-minded liberal partners to Soros play zero part in the selection of films to receive funding.

For years Soros has been skillfully executing his own blend of transference, labeling free market defenders “market fundamentalists” and accusing the right of practicing the very methods of Newspeak and propaganda that he pretends to condemn. Liberals today repeat his words as though they’ve been scripted. Despite his progressive political beliefs, this is not a man who simply wants to influence political policy to protect his Utopian vision of an Open Society. For Soros, this seems to be more about influencing a global collective of governments to behave as HE wants them to behave, to protect his own investments and views. Just as many criticize the U.S for any foreign intervention by military, Soros intervenes by way of investment – and he does so without any regard for the sovereignty of these countries. As he says in this Open Society Institute video from 2007:

“What I am doing in Central Asia is what I have done in other countries as well – is empower people living in the country to promote these ideas of open society. I know that I’m an outsider, I have no real understanding of the region, I have no particular solution to offer for the problems of the region. All I can do is help the people there to help themselves.”
Of course, it’s no surprise that in the very same regions featured in Soros’ video, only two months ago – three years since that video – a spontaneous uprising of the people has been sparked against their government in Kyrgyzstan. And what a surprise – they blame the U.S.! Meanwhile, Soros merely breezes past the information in the second part of that video about his own investments in nearby Kazakhstan oil fields, and his intentions to use that investment to influence those governments. He also never makes mention of his institute’s 2005 publication Covering Oil: A Reporter’s Guide to Energy and Development, intended to train journalists in Central Asia on how to report on petroleum development, complete with sample questions and sample stories. I’m sure that his influence on American media and film in demonizing petroleum production has helped his Central Asian investments quite a bit. How convenient.

While all of his rhetoric may sound noble to so many and his intentions charitable, Soros’ views are in actuality at odds with the intent of America’s founders. That’s why many Libertarians and Conservatives simply don’t see eye to eye with the philanthropist. Soros has stated on numerous occasions that there is an inherent conflict between Capitalism versus Open Society, again, calling free market supporters “market fundamentalists” while admonishing the capitalist system of the United States as one that ignores the common social needs. It is for this reason that Soros constantly preaches that significant government involvement is necessary; while he praises his own efforts in private philanthropy to affect social change, he views government as the permanent arbiter of selecting, financing and enforcing such change, and he dismisses any possibility that private citizens can and will meet the social needs of our fellow citizens as our nation’s founders intended.

Such a view defies the spirit of our founders and soils the praises from those, like Alexis deTocqueville, who once marveled at the American citizens’ affinity to fellow community members and their needs. It’s this spirit that becomes less and less familiar over time as more government intervenes in taking over the social responsibilities once held by families, communities, community centers, churches and other places of worship, local companies, and neighbors.

Instead of encouraging a return to our true American roots, Soros’ money is spent on propaganda, the very practice of deception that he decries. Among such efforts, the billionaire funds film and video that often depicts issues in a very slanted, one-sided way, by delivering a pre-packaged opinion to the viewers and intentionally appealing to the humanitarian nature of Americans, without presenting the truth to the other side or the unintended consequences of any proposed actions.
Soros has for years now opined that Americans have become very used to “pre-packaged thought” because our media only serves us information that is pre-packaged for us, and has called our political media coverage a “packaging industry”, comparing it to the Ministry of Truth, where Winston, the hero of 1984 worked. For someone who throws such Orwellian rhetoric around and points his accusatory propaganda finger so often, the man certainly does more than his part to fund America’s biggest propaganda machines with a lot of his Capitalist-earned cash.

To be continued in Part 3.
Part 1 can be found here.