【By Observer Net Columnist Xue Kaihuan】
Recently, US President Trump posted on his self-created social platform "Truth Social," publicly calling for legal action against George Soros, a well-known Democratic donor, and his son Alexander Soros, accusing them of violating the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and accusing them of funding "violent protests" and other activities across the country.
This move is both reasonable and expected. Trump has long had a grudge with Soros, and their ideological orientations are diametrically opposed, so it is reasonable for Trump to target Soros. What was somewhat surprising is that Trump took action against Soros more than half a year after returning to the White House, which is a long time, which seems to contradict his usual "always take revenge" style.
There is a classic joke: "Why has the United States never experienced a 'color revolution'? Because the United States does not have an American embassy." This statement is not entirely correct. Although the United States cannot have an official "American embassy," many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported by Soros actually play a similar role. They push political agendas within the United States and even form opposition to the US government at times. During elections, they frequently intervene in so-called "election monitoring" and are accused of inciting social divisions, creating public pressure, and even trying to influence the judicial process. The January 2021 "Capitol Hill incident" was seen by many conservative American commentators as the result of a joint operation between Democrats and Soros' NGOs.
On August 27, Trump threatened to bring federal charges of extortion and organized crime against Soros and his son on social media. Photo from: "Truth Social"
Therefore, the United States is not without "color revolution" instigators; they just exist in the form of internal division. When figures like Trump, who are not part of the establishment, challenge the existing power structure in the United States, these forces will quickly mobilize, use the names of "democracy" and "human rights" to implement political suppression, and their intensity is no less than the operations the US conducts abroad to overthrow regimes.
It can be said that the political struggle within the United States has gone beyond traditional left-right party disputes and evolved into an ideological war between globalist elites and local populists. Soros and his NGO network are important representatives of the former, and they continuously interfere with the direction of American politics through financial infiltration, media manipulation, and street movements. Trump's public attack is not only a counterattack against Soros personally but also another direct confrontation between two ideologies.
Internal Enemies
From the "Occupy Wall Street" movement to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, the model of social movements promoted by Soros and his affiliated organizations is strikingly similar to the methods used by the US to instigate "color revolutions" overseas. The difference is that in recent years, such operations have increasingly taken place within the United States itself.
Before delving deeper, it is necessary to clarify two backgrounds.
First, although the Soros camp and the Democrats often claim to be "left-wing" or progressive liberals, their positions do not hold up under scrutiny. Chinese netizens like to call them "white-leftists," a term that better reveals their essence: although they may exhibit some superficial characteristics of left-wing politics, such as emphasizing equality within identity politics, they remain firm supporters of capitalism when it comes to fundamental issues like wealth and power distribution. In foreign policy, they support imperialist expansion, regard the United States as the modern-day "Roman Empire," and actively promote American hegemony.
Secondly, in the United States, being "left-wing" is not a prestigious label. The United States has always valued the individualism promoted by the right wing. "Socialists" have long been stigmatized and are considered derogatory terms. Even though the traditional conservative values represented by Trump are waning, true left-wing positions are still difficult to be accepted by the mainstream American society.
The first "concentrated demonstration" of Soros' NGO capabilities was during the 2011 fall "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the United States.
The background of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was closely related to Obama's campaign for re-election. As a Democratic president, Obama's campaign was in trouble. Public opinion generally believed that his "left-wing" image hurt his popularity, especially his healthcare reform policy, which was controversial. In fact, the US healthcare system has long been criticized by Western allies, not only during the Cold War by the Soviet Union, but still often criticized by the EU for lacking fairness and efficiency.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which began in September 2011, later spread from New York to Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and other cities across the country.
In order to secure Obama's victory, the Democrats desperately sought help from Soros. Soros proposed a simple political manipulation method called the "focus shifting strategy." The core of this strategy is usually: if a candidate has a negative scandal, use a more serious scandal to divert the public's attention from the former.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement started on September 17, 2011, and ended on November 15. On the surface, it had all the characteristics of a "left-wing movement." It is worth noting that the movement never raised any slogans against Obama. From the beginning, the focus was deliberately guided to ensure that Obama's image remained unaffected.
The movement claimed to adhere to "non-violence." However, those familiar with the operations of "color revolutions" would find it easy to see that this movement was similar to the subversive actions that were previously staged in Georgia and Ukraine, which were beautified by Western media as "democratic movements." The difference is that in the United States, this movement was disguised as a so-called "real left-wing movement": Marx's portrait and the Soviet flag appeared on site, giving the impression that the United States was experiencing a left-wing ideology awakening.
Amidst the noise of a seemingly "left-wing uprising," Obama's alleged "socialist tendencies" seemed relatively moderate. Through the financial support of the Democrats and the organizational efforts of Soros, a social movement that originally targeted economic inequality was transformed into a dramatic yet hollow symbolic "left-wing" performance.
This is the subtlety of the "focus shifting" plan: by using stigmatization, it successfully shifted the attention of the public, especially the middle voters and conservative groups, from Obama's controversial domestic policies to those portrayed as "extreme left-wingers" in the street protests. By packaging and amplifying the extreme elements of the movement, they achieved the goal of "covering one unfavorable topic with a more dangerous one."
As a result, Obama won re-election in the 2012 election with 51.1% of the vote. Although the Republicans questioned the fairness of the election and some conservatives claimed Romney should have won, the result could not be changed.
It is worth noting that the current Vice President Biden, who later became president, also played a role in a similar narrative. In May 2020, the death of George Floyd, a Black man, due to police restraint triggered nationwide protests across the United States, and this event also affected Trump's campaign. Liberal media even claimed that Floyd's death was the result of the "divisive atmosphere" stirred up by Trump.
The death of George Floyd, a Black man, due to police restraint in May 2020 sparked nationwide protests in the United States and affected Trump's campaign.
Soros' side is very skilled in political manipulation techniques: if the "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) movement directly attacks Trump himself, it would make his core voter base more united. However, if the country falls into chaos, it would greatly affect Trump's image among the right-wing patriotic population and undermine the cohesion of this group of voters.
Soros himself did not appear directly this time, but multiple non-governmental organizations under his control directly participated in coordinating the disturbances. Interestingly, the name of this movement, "Black Lives Matter," was established as early as 2013. Although it may not necessarily be a premeditated plot, the timing is too coincidental.
The "Black Lives Matter" movement seriously affected Trump's voter base and ultimately helped break Trump's re-election dream. On November 3, 2020, Biden, who was behind in several polls, was elected as the US president. His advantage was also slight, with a vote share of only 51.3%.
Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why Trump sees Soros' institutions in the US as thorns in his side. They are essentially "color revolution" organizations that push political agendas through violence. The reason they have not yet launched a direct subversive operation domestically is not because of lack of willingness, but because the conditions are not met.
Soft Power Failure?
Recently, Trump publicly called for action against Soros and his related organizations, accusing them of intentionally causing instability within the United States. This move indicates that the US's long-standing "soft power" strategy is currently facing serious difficulties. The extent of its setback can be compared to the situation in 1941 when Nazi Germany launched a sudden attack on the Soviet Union, leading to the initial setbacks of the Red Army. Just as this attack laid the groundwork for the Soviet Union's subsequent difficult defense, the current setback of the "soft power" strategy may also have longer-term consequences.
At that time, the Soviet Union's failure was not due to fundamental problems in its national strategy, but rather a combination of command errors and unexpected battlefield situations. Similarly, the current situation faced by Soros and his team cannot simply be attributed to the ineffectiveness of "soft power." They have made their own decision-making mistakes and are also limited by external environmental changes. However, unlike the Soviet Union that suffered a sudden attack, Soros has more time, broader resources, and greater freedom of action, so his mistakes may cause more severe and lasting negative impacts on the United States.
Especially noteworthy is that after the failure of "soft power" overseas, Soros' side turned to use the "soft power" strategies originally used for international competition for internal struggles.
Media outlet "Politico" believes: Trump's rapid deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June 2025 was to reverse the image of inadequate handling of the Floyd incident five years ago, to avoid repeating the same mistake. Visual China
"Soft power" is not always ineffective; in fact, it was once very successful. But like all strategic tools, its effectiveness highly depends on specific environments and resource support, and it has clear limits of applicability.
The rise of Soros' side occurred in a special historical period. At that time, the situation was somewhat similar to the overwhelming dominance of European colonial powers in the late 19th century over traditional societies through technological, organizational, and military advantages. In terms of ideology, Soros also once occupied an unparalleled high ground. Especially in the fifteen years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West almost dominated the global ideological field, providing a set of seemingly irreplaceable development visions for many countries undergoing transformation.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 dealt a major blow to the Soviet system and socialist ideas. Soros' side seized the opportunity not only to provide new ideological theories to post-Soviet regions, but also to people in all post-socialist countries who were in a vacuum of ideas. It was no longer limited to the technical hybrid models of "market socialism" proposed by some Western reformers at the end of the Cold War, but instead attempted to combine leftist ideas with liberal components, forming a more complex and more packaged value system.
Actually, Soros advocated a seemingly novel but superficial concept of "social justice." He openly criticized the drawbacks of original capitalism, including corruption and lack of social responsibility caused by oligarchic monopolies, and encouraged groups that were frustrated during social transitions to fight for their rights. He even introduced a so-called "revolutionary theory" that was supposedly scientific but actually crude, simplified from the policy strategies of socialist countries.
Overall, Soros' proposals resonated in areas that had not completely shaken off old economic systems while facing new social injustices. His success was more attributable to the opportunities of the era than to the merits of his system design. However, like many once-successful social advocates, Soros mistakenly regarded the profits brought by the timing as a universal truth he created. However, there has never been a real "universal truth" that applies everywhere in the world.
Alexander Soros and his father George Soros
With the passage of time, more and more people have come to see the true face of Soros' side. The social groups cultivated by Soros have gradually realized that they are not a just force fighting against oligarchs, but rather representatives of a larger, more transnational "oligarchic system," whose real goal is to overthrow a country and unscrupulously seize the country's social resources.
Once people no longer believe in the ideology that Soros promotes, his "soft power" will quickly collapse. That is why he failed to successfully launch a "color revolution" in Russia, which had already moved out of the "confusion period" and was exploring new ideological paths. Soros even encountered failure in his homeland Hungary, as the Hungarian society widely accepted Orbán's nationalist conservative values.
With the overall decline of left-wing liberalism in the West, and the increasing demand for right-wing conservative ideas in post-socialist regions, Soros' "soft power" strategy has finally completely failed. In a dilemma, he can only label emerging right-wing conservative movements as "fascism."
This is a classic case of language corruption. Traditional fascism did indeed borrow parts of the shell of conservatism and nationalism, but these ideas themselves are not equivalent to fascism. They can exist and develop within a rational framework. However, it is often the extreme ideological forces represented by Soros that repeatedly try to overturn the existing order through intense means such as regime change.
To distort healthy conservatism into "fascism," it is necessary to introduce more inciting ideological elements, that is, by intensifying social conflicts, thereby justifying the comprehensive suppression of local consciousness. Therefore, true fascist movements must mix with Soros-style extremism, only then can they provide justification for subversive actions that claim to be "democratic" but are actually controlled by a few people.
The ideological evolution path of Soros' side is clear: from initially advocating "the people have the right to self-determination," it gradually deteriorated into believing that "those who are chosen have the right to control those who do not comply," eventually falling into the linguistic corruption of "democracy is defined by me, if I say you are not democratic, you are not democratic."
Returning to the present. Although Trump's attack on Soros is largely based on personal grudges, aimed at striking political opponents closely associated with the Soros system (such as Biden, Obama, Hillary, etc.), if he can persist in pushing forward and ultimately succeed, this may become the first step in dismantling Sorosism. Its significance goes far beyond the image of "international peace advocate" that Trump promotes.
If Trump really takes action and succeeds, the political and economic landscape of the United States and the European Union will inevitably face tremors. At that time, the followers of Sorosism may choose to abandon Soros himself, as he is ultimately just a wealthy person hired to do dirty work, with almost all his chips used up. And "soft power" will need to find new ideological supports, but this does not mean that the ideological system built by the West will easily collapse. The cleanup of Sorosism is just the beginning, and what follows will be more stubborn deep-seated forces, and the real struggle will only just begin.
This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Net. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7546784448075809314/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Top/Down] buttons below.