Geopolitics: Soros-Style Activism and Generation Z

In any matter of a geopolitical nature, it is always necessary to analyze the concrete variables and the power dynamics hidden behind the scenes, beyond the narratives of traditional media. What underlies the color revolutions seen recently in Asian countries? Places that were once firmly controlled by local regimes fell into the Western orbit following massive protests. Immediately, headlines proclaimed: Generation Z is leading the change. This phenomenon is occurring in regions where, for years, there has been a shift away from the United States as the main trading partner in favor of China and the multipolar world project.

These two crucial facts—the agent of change identified by the West and the shift in trade relations—reveal that another, weightier element persists behind the color revolutions. Abrupt changes in a country only occur when objective conditions exist, but the subjective, underlying question falls to political operators. In other words, the work of cultural erosion and the management of formative opinion matrices play a fundamental role in mobilizing and shaping the discourse of change. None of this is conceivable without a power, using its own resources, fostering the phenomenon. Color revolutions, which appear spontaneous, are in reality vehicles for transformation in both the objective and political subjectivity realms.

To view what happened in Nepal in isolation from the country's material conditions, access to wealth, and levels of inequality is to conduct a flawed analysis. But at the same time, ignoring the evident Western influence regarding Generation Z could veer into oversimplification and banality when deconstructing politics. Generation Z, those born after the millennials and raised on social media, for whom internet access is existential. In Nepal, restrictions imposed on certain platforms like YouTube were supposedly the trigger for taking to the streets. However, the analysis must venture into other avenues. For decades, a phenomenon known as the NGO-ization of politics has occurred—the conversion of politics into something managed by NGOs. This process led to change agendas being set not from Western embassies or through the use of force, but from internal linkage through cultural work. The co-opting of internal institutions, the use of change agents, and the formation of narratives gave way to a procedure that became globalized in different scenarios and bore fruit. Wherever a leader not aligned with the West emerged, protests invariably occurred, possessing a set of hallmarks from internal identification and utilization efforts.

So, what is Generation Z? A term so broad, so diverse, so subjective, that it becomes elusive. It encompasses much but specifies little. It is established as a label that can be shifted for convenience. They are defined by social media, but also by a non-hierarchical relationship with social values and a commitment to a change in practical ethics. They seem like a revival of the hippies, but with a powerful woke component, placing them within a rigid morality concerning race and gender. They are liberal, yet also engage in cancel culture. They are diverse, but also resistant to anything outside politically correct boundaries. When analyzing this political subject, one sees the marks of the laboratory that created it and how it is perfect as the spearhead of a certain social movement. They cannot be blamed for anything; they possess strong emotional elements of victimhood, which opens the possibility for them to act with a degree of impunity in the legal/social sphere. They have been cultivated with irresponsibility, detachment, anarchy, and idealism. All this serves as a breeding ground to mold them to any concrete situation.

There has long been talk of a desire for a world government among Western elites. More than a conspiracy theory, the aspirations of financial magnates have been clear, expressed in how money flows to establish formative cultural narratives for new generations. Young people are the perfect mold for cultural change. They pulsate with the desire to act beyond formalities and known discourses, to impose themselves and grow. It is obvious that these are natural dynamics which, if well-focused, lead to processes of dialectics and improvement. The youth are the clay with which a social system is kneaded and built, and consequently, they can be hacked to deconstruct it. This Generation Z, which is real and possesses its own characteristics in terms of technology use, has carried out political changes, but with the ideological command of decades of Western erosion of the collective consciousness. The hegemony of globalism has served to disseminate lines of thought that become politically correct for large groups. The subconscious feeds on gratifications; in other words, it is evident that the impact of the cultural agenda has created a political subject in its own image and likeness. And despite isolated individual behaviors, what prevails in that collectivity comes from the consciousness laboratories situated at the center of the relationship between subordinate and subordinating countries in the world-system.

The relationship between color revolutions and the Western globalist agenda is proportional. As the subject becomes homogenized, the lines of influence become more specific and have a greater impact. Work with group, generational, and youth-oriented interests will continue to be the hallmark of an international collaboration involving non-governmental agencies with private funding but systemic visions of hegemony.

As the West grows weaker in the economic field, the work of manipulation and use of mass media to substitute concrete reality with narratives intensifies. This process takes root in societies of the Far East, Middle East, and Africa, where in recent decades China has entered with investment projects that replace Western technology and grant these countries autonomy in geopolitics. Therefore, analyses of the ongoing rebellions cannot be separated from the reality of power distribution or how citizens are impacted.

Geopolitics will continue to explain why major powers influence the world's most strategic zones, based on their interests. In Nepal's case, the Silk Road issue carries significant weight because both China and India have interests in the region. Kathmandu is a poor square, but it controls the passes in the Himalayan mountains. Furthermore, it is a country that serves as a buffer against social movements and processes of change. The West's idea may be to break communication between Eastern powers. The variable there is to disunite, to create aligned governments that act as proxies on enemy borders.

Anyone reviewing the national security doctrine emanating from the ideas of Samuel Huntington will see that, indeed, they consider these points as fault lines between civilizations. In the Western idea, the empire (the United States) acts like Rome with its external points and defends its interests through third parties. Both Nepal and Venezuela are seen as the edges of the West where it is supposedly acceptable to generate conflicts of attrition. But the boomerang is currently hitting the United States in return, and as a multilateralist vision of the world gains ground, the imperial diplomacy inherited from the past and the distribution by the modern capitalist system is fading.

The moves in Nepal seek two things: to place aligned individuals in countries and to generate chaos on the borders of adversary powers (China, India, and Russia). When Afghanistan fell to the Taliban years ago, it was known that the empire would use cultural dominance tactics in that region, which are much more effective for them in the medium term. In other words, the Generation Z subject is created expressly for this type of thing; it moves within the substance of the globalists and is a battering ram for their interests. Not because they are co-opted, but because the erosive work of the cultural agenda has made them perfect for it. It can be said that they already possess all the ideological ingredients beforehand, and only the spark is awaited.

What does this mean in geopolitical terms? That the NGO empire, thought to have collapsed when its funding was cut, remains active and has mutated into regions of the world where direct objectives persist. The agenda will continue to function despite what MAGA supporters say about the end of Soros-style activism.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Díaz / CubaSí Translation Staff