Open Society Institute
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
Dear Mr. Soros,
It’s no fun, of course, for a writer to get rejected. I’ve been rejected plenty of times by the blogs where I am the Russia columnist, American Thinker and Pajamas Media, and although (most of the time) they were right to do it that doesn’t make it any more pleasant. But getting rejected by George Soros is a whole different matter. Probably, it’s about as low as you can get. This is how it happened to me, as if you didn’t know.
A little while back I penned a column for Pajamas about the horrific number of black lynchings that occur in Russia on at least a twice-weekly basis, and the shocking silence of Barack Obama regarding that issue. I was having a good week. Pajamas ran it.
A little while later, I happened upon a truly offensive bit of ignorant, dishonest, pro-Russia, anti-Georgia rubbish regarding the August 2008 war which was styled as an “editorial” on the Transitions Online website. I wrote a letter to the editor, complaining about the outrageous diatribe, and to their credit they ran the letter as the lead in their letters section. I was batting a thousand! It was not to last.
My juices in full flow, it occurred to me to wonder whether TO had ever published anything on the lynchings. I looked through their Russia page and search engine, carefully I thought, found nothing, and wrote something up and submitted it to them for publication to fill the void.
It got rejected.
The editor, a fellow named Ky Krauthamer (I’m guessing no relation to the arch conservative columnist and Russophobe of the same surname in the stable of the Washington Post) wrote me this: “Thanks for the submission on racial violence. Obviously a very important issue, and one we have covered a number of times. Your piece, while timely, does cover similar issues as a number of previous TOL pieces, so we won’t be able to use it.”
So just to be clear, I’ve already been published on this subject and this fellow agrees the topic is important. Onward we go.
Now although it may surprise some of my readers to hear it, I’m the first one to admit I could have made a mistake, and I did admit it. I wrote back to Ky and asked him to supply me with the links to his material, which I’d been unable to locate myself (maybe it was the vapors, my critics tell me I get them quite often). I informed him I’d love to tout his wonderful work, of which I’d been shamefully unaware, on my blog La Russophobe. I promptly put his Russia page on my blogroll.
Days went by. No answer.
E-mails, of course, sometimes get mistaken for spam (though my letter to the editor and my submission e-mails had no difficulty), so I sent a follow-up, and this time I threatened him. I said I’d write about it if he wouldn’t supply me the links, intending to say he gave me the bum’s rush as part of an essentially racist pro-Obama coverup. No answer again. So I’m writing.
Because, as far as I can tell, I’ve been lied to as part of a coverup to prevent Obama from catching political flak over his cowardly, craven failure to stand up to racism in Putin’s Russia.
Well, here’s the thing: Transitions Online is funded by the Open Society Institute, and their website’s address has the word “soros” in it because OSI, in turn, is funded by you and your billions. And it seems you have quite a little axe to grind where Barack Obama is concerned, don’t you Mr. Soros? An American Thinker analysis says Obama is “replacing the Bush Doctrine with the Soros Doctrine.” Michelle Malkin says you are in bed with Obama over offshore drilling. Your funding of Obama’s political activity goes way back. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
Let me be clear: Not everything on the TO website is bad. It employs the Russian journalist Galina Stolyarova, for whom I have boundless respect, and she regularly gets to report facts about Russia that are hardly flattering to the Kremlin. I now realize, however, that what she doesn’t get to do is criticize Obama’s Russia policy. And nor, as far as I can tell, does anybody else. My letter to TO, for instance, had the good fortune not to mention him.
In short, calling Obama a de facto racist who’s contributing to the brutal, bloody murder of dozens upon dozens of blacks in Russia every year, needless to say, just isn’t going to happen on Soros-controlled media. Such a thing would not fall within the Soros definition of an “open society.”
If you think about it, I guess, you’re not being paranoid. One might easily fear such information to be the kind that, if it got out, could bring Obama down by undermining him with his core base. Not that my submission to TOL was phrased in any such sensational way. Here’s what I wrote: “It’s time for Obama to live out the true meaning of his creed. Black people are dying in Russia, on average two per week. If the African-American President of the United States won’t stand up for them, who will?”
So basically, the upshot is that if a few hundred black people have to be butchered in Russia as the cost of advancing the “Soros Doctrine” to its fullest glory during eight years of Obama rule, it is considered by all concerned, including the first black president and you, to be a small enough price to pay. And so is lying to cover up the nasty bits.
I find that disappointing. I’d like to ask you to reconsider what the words “open society” mean, and consider the possibility that they don’t mean blind political partisanship in derogation of basic democratic values and facts.