Archive for March, 2007

The Soros Vision

March 20, 2007

About four months ago, George Soros opened his vision of the world in an interview given in Prague.  “Global mission for the EU” (November 23, 2006) tells how the vision evolved in his adroit layman’s mind. 

He claims to be the ideological heir of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies,” published in 1941.  Popper was of Austrian-Hungarian Jewish ethnicity, though his parents professed Christianity.  (That would naturally strike a note in Soros, who pretended to be Christian to escape Nazi horrors–so far as to turn in other Jews.)   Soros traces the “Open Society” idea however to the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, also Jewish by ethnicity.  Bergson used the term “Open Society” in his book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, 1932.  

Soros sums up Berson’s idea: 

One source, according to Bergson, is tribal and leads to a closed society whose members feel affinity for each other but fear or hostility toward others. The other source is universal, leading to an open society guided by universal human rights that protects and promotes the freedom of the individual.

“Universal human rights?”  Sounds like the Communist ideology to me.  Then Soros summarizes the Popper position:

an open society can be endangered by abstract, universal ideologies like communism and fascism. Because these ideologies’ claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth is bound to be false, they can be imposed on society only through repression and compulsion. By contrast, an open society accepts uncertainty, and it establishes laws and institutions that allow people with divergent views and interests to coexist.

Oh, so if we’re against Communism, we can’t possibly be Communist?   Sounds good.  Alas, all world visions sound so perfectly wonderful, it is a pity that they seem to come about only through war and oppression, especially the global-oriented ideologies espoused by Soros–whose political acheivments have not disdained violence.   “Divergent views and interests” can coexist only up to a certain point, and then they are competitors, and that eventually leads to the same strife that exists and has always existed, in any society.   Soros thinks the Euopean Union is a noble effort but it has been undermined by outside adverse forces.  Fancy that.

Soros lets the cat out of the bag when he indicts America and President Bush:

Unfortunately the disarray within the EU is part of a broader global turmoil. The United States used to be the dominant power and set the agenda for the world. But President George W. Bush’s war on terror undermined the basic principles of American democracy by expanding executive powers. It undermined the critical process that is at the heart of an open society by treating any criticism of the administration’s policies as unpatriotic, thereby allowing Bush to order the invasion of Iraq.

Soros, a great fan of Bill Clinton–who expanded executive powers more than any president in history, and used them to bomb the daylights out of Serbian civilians in Kosovo, is pleased rather to accuse Bush of some kind of tyranny.  Soros has avowed his disdain for the American Constitution and the nationalism (Soros calls it “tribalism”) it entails, and yet accuses Bush of perverting the meaning of democracy. 

 According to Soros definition of democracy, there is no nationhood.  Globalism is the answer, and the world must become a Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, with Soros standing in for the late Mr. Rogers.  A world without nations is the most naive and tyrannical notion ever conceived.  It is beyond empirialism, and the tryanny and oppression it engenders will exceed anything caused by Bush’s attempts to establish democracy in Iraq. 


The Soros Take on World Power

March 9, 2007

Last May, 2006, George Soros revealed more of his strange and inconsistent views of the world.  In his new book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror (2006), Soros claims that he doesn’t want world government, but rather world organizations.  He doesn’t want any nation to have any power over any other, or some such unnatural, dictatorial notion of sorts.  No.  He wants the power.  He wants to see his views implemented on the world.  

NewsMax reported on this book August 21, 2006, based on a Boston Globe interview with Soros the day before. 

 Soros talks about international law.  That is the key to his secret power grab.  Not through force, but through law, he would see his vision of the world.   Of course, the force he is using to bring about that ‘law’ is money.  And he’s not above using violence, either.  He pays for it.   His funded several revolutions to oust people he dislikes.  By financing the anti-government movements, he overthrew regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, and under the Clinton administration, was able to take great advantage of the discomfited Russia.  This is all in The Shadow Party, by David Horowitz and Richard Poe. 

Soros is kidding no one but himself, and whomever he pays to work for him.  He just wants world power, by any means.  He merely promises utopia as the moral justification of his means.  He thinks he can morally condemn others for the power they have earned, and thus justify his right to go after the same power, with deceptive means.