We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

The Dark Lord Soros
by A.M. Siriano
26 January 2004Open Society

What is embodied George Soros is the morphed spirit of the philosopher Karl Popper, who fostered and defined a politico-economic theory called “Open Society.”


Billionaire and ideologue George Soros, who came out of disembodied obscurity to popular recognition by vowing to unseat President Bush, is the sort of evil whose very presence should turn our stomachs.  As in the Lord of the Rings, in which Sauron begins to manifest himself as his power is threatened, Soros has come out of hiding in order to amass his armies to stop the spread of capitalism.

Okay, so I’m engaging in a little hyperbole.  But I believe the analogy, with America as a type of Middle Earth, is fitting.  Soros has been around for some time and has never been, or hosted, a disembodied spirit—as far as I know!  What is embodied in him is the morphed spirit of the philosopher Karl Popper, who fostered and defined a politico-economic theory called “Open Society.”  Soros has been in the process of redefining that theory and believes his version to be as close to truth as one can get.

Soros’ adaptation of Open Society is easily recognized if one utters the words from which individualistic-minded people everywhere tend to recoil:  One-World Government.  You’re not likely to hear that coming out of his sorry mouth; instead you’ll hear this:  “It is easier to identify the enemies of the open society than to give the concept a positive meaning.”  In a frightening piece from a February 1997 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Soros spins his vision as best as he is able (and he is very able indeed—a moron does not a billionaire make):

We start with the recognition of our own fallibility, which extends not only to our mental constructs but also to our institutions. What is imperfect can be improved, by a process of trial and error. The open society not only allows this process but actually encourages it, by insisting on freedom of expression and protecting dissent. The open society offers a vista of limitless progress. In this respect it has an affinity with the scientific method. But science has at its disposal objective criteria—namely the facts by which the process may be judged. Unfortunately, in human affairs the facts do not provide reliable criteria of truth, yet we need some generally agreed-upon standards by which the process of trial and error can be judged. All cultures and religions offer such standards; the open society cannot do without them. The innovation in an open society is that whereas most cultures and religions regard their own values as absolute, an open society, which is aware of many cultures and religions, must regard its own shared values as a matter of debate and choice.

“Open” here is cunningly used as a synonym for “free,” but we are not talking about freedom at all.  Freedom of thought is a good thing, says Soros, as long as it is in the context of this worldwide system he is proposing, and freedom of religion is a lovely idea if religion remains an innocuous presence only.  By Soros’ own words, it is easy to discover how secularism and world order are inseparable ideals.  Contrast this to the Founders’ belief that freedom of thought can only exist in the context of liberty.  Freedom of religion is encouraged, not quelled, and is certainly not divorced from the process of self-governance.  The government cannot impel religious thought, of course, but it should never try to stop it either.
 
Soros further reveals the anti-theistic nature of his Open Society in another alarming paragraph:

The Declaration of Independence may be taken as a pretty good approximation of the principles of an open society, but instead of claiming that those principles are self-evident, we ought to say that they are consistent with our fallibility. Could the recognition of our imperfect understanding serve to establish the open society as a desirable form of social organization? I believe it could, although there are formidable difficulties in the way. We must promote a belief in our own fallibility to the status that we normally confer on a belief in ultimate truth. But if ultimate truth is not attainable, how can we accept our fallibility as ultimate truth?

These may be the most audacious remarks I have ever read.  Some of the greatest words of liberty ever penned must now be revamped?  Read between the lines:  The Dark Lord Soros wants to throw God out of his proposed earthly paradise.  The core theme of the Declaration --

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-- cannot stand within an Open Society, because it is inherently spiritual.  “Self-evident” means that something is obvious within the soul to any rational human being.  We are still trying to actuate the remarkable thoughts of our Founders, and have gone through tribulation to get as far as we have got, but now the forces of Mordor (call them MoveOn.orc if you like) are on the rise.  The message is that we must embrace relativism, the contradictory notion that “nothing is true” is the only truth.  In Soros’ words:  “[T]hat our understanding is imperfect … we must accept … as an article of faith.”

Because I was a Cold War baby, raised in the Sixties and wary of the communist threat, I was happy and relieved to watch as President Reagan demolished the foundations of communism in the Eighties.  Since then, I have been perhaps too focused on the threat of its reemergence.  It is a very real threat, but I have neglected the stealthy rise of alternate paths to one-world government.  We must remember that utopian ideologies, which are all opposed to true individualism, are often at odds with each other.  Communism opposed Nazism during World War II, a fact that has fueled the false conclusion that one was far-left and the other far-right.  Both, in fact, arose from anti-theistic socialism, the core of leftist thought, and both were touted as paths to some type of utopian world order.

George Soros, adopting the anti-totalitarian view of Karl Popper, fought against both communism and Nazism.  Now, with no competing insidious opponents left, he turns his attention to a more subtle and dogged enemy, capitalism:

Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.

How convenient for him, to use capitalism for his own ends, and, once achieved, oppose similar opportunity for others!  But this is all very subversive.  Open Society is the latest version of the utopian dream, and this time it has a democratic face.  It is, in fact, the natural progression of the “progressive” party, which embraces democratic socialism, i.e., democracy within a socialistic framework.  This can only lead to global welfare and statist control, a system that is openly hostile to laissez-faire capitalism, to religious truth, and to any attempt to find freedom outside the boundaries of the state.  In such an environment, individualism is necessarily suspect; says Soros:

I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction—from excessive individualism. Too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability.

Are we seeing signs of this push toward one-world government today?  How about the gospel-like assumption that we must not act to defend our land except under the aegis of the U.N.?  How about the cries of foul against our refusal to accept the juris-impudence of the International Court?  How about Kyoto as a doctrine?  How about the anarchistic protests against open global trade?

George Soros views George Bush as the enemy, and there is some speculation that Soros is planning a financial coup to panic the market at election time.  This seems unlikely, but it all depends on how much hatred he has for Bush, a hatred that is largely a mystery to the tradition-loving people who live in Bush Country.  Conservatives everywhere disagree with Bush on many points, including the continued growth of the government, a trend in Congress that Bush has so far refused to curb, and his position on immigration, to name only two; but none of his weaknesses warrant the sort of hatred being spewed from the peaks of Mordor.  How can it be explained?

It is very simple, really.  George Bush, by his present role and his uncompromising ideals, embodies the self-evident truths that people like Soros despise:  capitalism, religious freedom, and the belief that the truth can be realized and acted upon—all mainstays of individualistic liberty.

The battle for Middle Earth is not yet upon us, folks, but let’s not be fooled:  a storm is brewing.

A. M. Siriano is a DBA/web developer by day and writes for his own website, amsiriano.com, by night
.

Email A.M. Siriano

Send this Article to a Friend