The Billionaires Opening the Border

The billionaires opening the border

Wars, immigration and falling fertility

THINKING COALITION

I have argued that well-endowed foundations, funded by a small group of billionaires, determine large sections of government policy. This happens in many countries and especially in the UK. This seems like a credible proposition given that many policies are not only not supported by the People, but in some cases actively opposed by a majority (see compulsory vaccination).

Mass inward migration is a particular case in point. Multiple surveys over a period of decades have consistently shown that the majority of respondents want to reduce inward migration, yet it has consistently increased!

This led me to start looking into who is actually pushing for open borders in the face of such opposition. Worryingly, I saw quite a bit of overlap in the aims of those who advocate for and fund open borders, fertility reduction, and those who promote forever wars. The interaction of these policies create the spurious arguments that justify mass immigration. Simple maths suggest that indigenous populations will become minorities in their own countries in the foreseeable future (while this combination has been widely attributed to the so-called “Kalergi Plan”, this claim is a red herring).1

The media narrative around illegal immigration is very carefully curated and is typified by Nigel Farage pointing to a boat with illegal immigrants, or Tommy Robinson highlighting the location of a particular migrant hotel. You are supposed to get angry at the migrants and see Reform UK as the saviour. This bonfire of hate and division is fuelled by daily stories of silly court rulings on individual asylum claims and reports of crimes committed by asylum seekers. It should be obvious that people are getting angry at the consequences of damaging political decisions, whilst the Establishment media never looks at the money behind open borders.

I don’t want to underplay how difficult it is to identify the oligarchs funding open borders but the data is in the public domain and a week on Companies House website leads to a pretty comprehensive picture. In the acres of media coverage of the asylum seeker problem you probably have never seen the name Alan Parker, or heard about wealthy foundations like Esmée Fairburn, Paul Hamlyn or the AB Charitable Trust. But these are the key funders behind a network of hundreds of NGOs involved in funding asylum seekers legal claims and lobbying to stop any tightening of asylum arrangements.

I ended up with a list of billionaires working hand-in-glove with the hard Left (with their perennial enthusiasm for destructive policies). The ‘capo’ of open borders is unquestionably George Soros, whose foundations pump money into a network of Leftist NGOs and charities around the world.

George Soros

The largest foundation in his network is the Foundation to Promote Open Society (“FTPOS”) which had assets of USD 10.6 billion at 31^st Dec 2023. That asset base allowed it to fund expenditures of USD 874 million in 2023 on the back of investment income and capital gains. To put that into context, FTPOS’ asset base is more than 30 times larger than the UK Conservative party, which spent USD 56 million in 2023. Soros is on record calling for Europe to take in one million asylum seekers per year as far back as 2016 (in that article he also called for Europe to Federalise its response and borrow money to fund his proposals).

Soros is also heavily involved with NGOs that influence/set foreign policy, including the European Council for Foreign Relations (USD 5.7 million) and Chatham House (USD 1.8 million) and the Atlantic Council (see Rumble video, “Who sets foreign policy?”). You could argue that aggressive, interventionist Western foreign policies have largely created the large number of refugees in Middle East countries.

As an aside, in my review of the activities of Comrade Mathew Goodwin, I identified Goodwin’s work (through Chatham House) with Daniel Sachs (Deputy Chairman, Open Society Foundations) in pushing open borders and radical multiculturalism.

Other foundations

Beyond FTPOS are other foundations that pass money to UK NGOs working to keep borders open and to frustrate any efforts to reduce immigration (see picture below).

The asset figure for OAK Foundation, a foundation with an international focus set up by Alan Parker (pictured), is estimated because OAK only seems to publish an annual estimate of expenditure. Accordingly, the asset figure shown is based on an estimate of Parker’s wealth in 2013.

Very little information is available about Geneva-based Parker. Others who researched Oak Foundation found a number of Parker related entities (incorporated in different jurisdictions), but were unable to find the consolidated financial statements of a parent company/organisation. Initially, the main source of Parker’s wealth was his stake in Hong Kong-based Duty Free Shoppers, where he was in business with (would you believe it?) George Soros.

To say these foundations have massive financial fire power is to understate their true position. Their total assets, even if you exclude FTPOS and OAK Foundation, are around USD 6.4 billion and USD 3.3 billion.

These billionaires have endowed foundations which then fund a bewildering array of “charities” and NGOs. Even though many of these NGOs perform a useful service, they also lobby heavily for their preferred policy positions (including open borders). For the most part these policy positions are very hard Left, or “progressive” (for which read “destructive”). Overall, these NGOs push combinations of the green agenda, population reduction, multiculturalism, trans rights and open borders. As a conservative, I would say that these agenda cause misery for, and are alien to the interests of, large sections of the law-abiding citizenry.

O’Sullivan’s Law

Some of the foundations have outlived their original funders and seem to have succumbed to O’Sullivan’s Law which dictates: “All organizations that are not expressly right-wing will over time become left-wing”.

For instance, the Esmee Fairburn Foundation was established by Stephen Ian Fairburn in 1961 in honour of his wife Esmee, who was killed in an air raid during World War II. Fairburn was a high achieving old-Etonian who fought throughout World War I. Despite being wounded in that war, he rowed in the 1924 Olympics and later built up the M&G fund management business. The sale of his M&G shares to Prudential was the financial basis for the Esmee Fairburn Foundation.

During Fairburn’s lifetime (he died in 1968), the foundation focused on the “promotion of economic enlightenment and research.” Today the foundation pursues initiatives such as the “leadership programme for people of colour” in the environment sector and “trans inclusive funding” and is headed by (in my opinion) achingly woke Dame Caroline Mason CBE.

Facilitating a backlog

In the UK a stunning 215+ organisations signed the letter opposing the Fake-Conservatives’ Rwanda proposals. I have looked at some of those organisations and found that they are funded, at least in part, by the foundations identified above. The table below shows a small sample with the most recent annual expenditure figure.

I don’t want to disparage all of these organisations and I am sure that there is some good in the work that they do. It is necessary, however, to take into account the staggering asylum backlog – the endless lawfare and appeals – that they have facilitated. At the end of 2024, 91,000 asylum applications and 42,000 appeals were outstanding (Source: The Migration Observatory). This equates to a whopping 224,742 people (many applications are for more than one person). The result is that the cost of dealing with asylum seekers has gone up almost tenfold and was over GBP 5.4 billion for the 2023/24 year.

The push for open borders

I am pretty sure that open borders, like many other destructive polices, were invented by the oligarchy, thrashed out by the NGOs they fund, and then passed on to Uniparty politicians for execution.

As I mentioned in pervious posts, it is usually the hard Left who act as the “tip-of-the-spear” for globalist oligarchs as they seem to on the most enthusiastic to implement damaging policies.

The hard left is on record as wanting open borders, indeed, in 2019 the Fabian Society called for the removal of all border controls. Most of the NGOs I looked at use neo-Marxists terms whereby seeking to limit immigration is “racist” and opening borders is “anti-racist.” As idealogues they talk about “lived experience” to avoid dealing with any objective reality concerning the size and cost of the asylum backlogs, and insist that asylum seekers are entitled to accommodation and food as a human right.

Time and again, they ignore the fact that this “right” is funded by the long-suffering tax-payer who is already overloaded funding all of the people claiming “rights.” These arrangements are simply not sustainable.

Local councils

Whilst these NGOs receive money from foundations, they also receiving a lot of funding from the tax-payer via grants from local councils and from various lottery related funds. For example, the largest such contributions included;

• GBP 3.0 million from Birmingham County Council (see note2 to Refugee Action.
• GBP 0.6 million London Councils (a funding vehicle combing different London boroughs) to Praxis.

For the most part, these organisations don’t provide actual housing, or financial support but focus mainly on providing legal support and advice to claimants.

In addition to funding the NGOs via council tax payments, the tax-payer is also spending GBP 15 million a year in immigration-related legal aid in order to frustrate the Home Office’s efforts to remove people from the UK. The result is that the tax-payer is often funding both sides of immigration related cases!

What’s to be done?

One of the reasons for producing this post is to illustrate that the Establishment media’s cynical efforts to get people very angry at, say, an individual migrant or a particular hotel location are designed to distract people from the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the billionaires who are financing the huge network of NGOs, who in turn keep borders open by funding asylum seekers’ claims and by opposing any government policies which could reduce the number of asylum seekers.

I am not an expert in asylum matters, but I don’t see any reason why there should be a right to appeal after a claim has been determined by the Home Office. I guess that appeals could be done away with, or at least the grounds of appeal reduced to a bare minimum, that alone would remove 42,000 outstanding appeals. It should also be virtually impossible to seek asylum when arriving from a country where there is no war. This would eliminate tens of thousands of claimants from Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Turkey and other countries. These topics could be raised with MPs to at least create a document trail.

If people are interested in tackling this problem, there could also be a benefit to writing to the funding foundations and councils and asking what the “public benefit” is to funding asylum claims when the system is so obviously overloaded. This could be particularly relevant for residents of the councils identified above and asking why are those councils providing multi-million pound grants to organisations that are involved in lobbying work to oppose immigration reform? All councils have a duty to impartiality, and legitimate questions could be raised as to why Liverpool, Birmingham, Hertfordshire, London Councils etc. are providing grants to these NGOs. For further practical suggestions, please look at the article called “Winning the Omniwar”.

I want to be able to share research insights with readers whilst keeping my head above water, so please help fund the operation via Patreon (Patreon.com/ThinkingSlow) which gives early access to material and ZOOM calls with Alex and other team members, or one-off support via Buy Me A Coffee (https://buymeacoffee.com/thinkingslow).

As always please provide your comments below, I do read them and very often they feed into the research effort.

Many thanks

Alex

Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was one of the first people to highlight the flawed nature of the Imperial COVID model. He spent his career in consultancy and fund management including a long stint in Russia. His last job was in one of the world’s largest pension funds where he handled corporate governance issues and shareholder voting over a portfolio of 2,300 equity investments. He is a founder of the Thinking Coalition which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about government overreach and are developing practical solutions to protect inalienable individual liberties (www.thinkingcoalition.org)

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.