Skip to main content

George Soros

George Soros is a billionaire activist. He considers himself "progressive" (aha, the code-word for "socialist"). Soros declared war on George Bush in 2002 and gave large amounts of money to activist organizations such as MoveOn.org in a (failed) attempt to defeat him in the 2004 elections.

In 2002, Soros stated:

"The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. The supremacist ideology postulates that just because we are stronger than others, we know better and have right on our side. The very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (the President's annual laying out to Congress of the country's security objectives) reads, 'The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.'"

I fully, totally agree with the National Security Strategy statement. Soros quotes it disparagingly - he indicates that to think the idea that freedom, democracy, and free enterprise (capitalism) are superior values is solely an expression of "might makes right".

I also fully agree that Bush stands in opposition to moral relatavism - the "open society" philosophy of Soros says that nobody can know truth, and thus we're all equally right (also, all equally wrong?) Bush is the diametric opposite of Bill Clinton, the relatavists poster child.

If Soros thinks that the National Security Strategy statement is false, let us examine the alternatives.

The opposite of freedom, is slavery. The opposite of democracy, is totalitarianism. The opposite of free enterprise, is fascism or socialism. If you wonder whether I am exaggerating, then note that freedom, democracy and capitalism go hand in hand in the US, UK, and most of Western Europe. Slavery, totalitarianism, and socialism were hand-in-hand in the 20th century - WW2 Japan and Germany, Soviet Russia, China, every other true socialist or communist regime.

Mr. Soros seems to believe that freedom, democracy and capitalism are not superior values, but simply arrogance that the "strong" US is trying to force upon the world. He further suggests that what the world needs in the 21st century is more slavery, totalitarianism and socialism (or perhaps in equal amounts with freedom?)

But Soros has it totally backwards.

These things are not right because we are strong. We are strong because they are right principles.

It is extremely ironic that someone like Soros, who has become one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the world, benefitted precisely from the freedom, democracy, and capitalism that Bush adheres to as guiding principles - but which Soros appears to be sneering at.

This "open society" philosophy is College 101 nonsense. It's one of those examples of a philosophy that is prima-facie self-contradictory. If nobody can know what the truth is, then neither can Soros - and his "open society' philosophy thus can have no claim to truth either.

What we should wonder about, is what - or who - can cause clearly intelligent people like Soros to shoot themselves in the head, and make them try to destroy the very values that allowed him to go from pauper to success - freedom, democracy, and capitalism?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…