THE
SOROSIAN IDEOLOGY
From
lofty perches like the economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, the
view of democracy as political power emanating from the common
man is obscured by clouds. Democracy becomes – at best – "government
with the consent of the governed." If I step on your face
long and hard enough or send police around to your house to kick
your door down on a regular basis, you might consent to me "governing"
you. But democracy you wouldn’t have. Soros is probably not a
big democracy buff, no matter what he thinks of himself. He advocated
a global governmental role for unelected NATO many years before
the bombing of innocents in Yugoslavia, and before KFOR troops
started kicking in doors.
Soros
is supposedly on the "left" – and he finds nationalism
repulsive – but he doesn’t see political power emanating from
the common man. He is the global elitist par excellence. Soros’s
left-of-centrism involves knowing what’s best for the little people.
He is one of the big people, and the big people have the money
and the technology that can solve all Humanity’s ills. Soros claims
that his ideology doesn’t have "solutions," which conveniently
allows him to sidestep the responsibility of putting forth anything
but sweeping, nebulous ideas. But he does in fact have vague "solutions."
He just doesn’t call them that.
I
advocate an alliance of democratic states, with a dual purpose.
One, to promote what I call open society. I talk about an alliance
of open societies which would first bolster the development of
open societies within individual countries, because there’s a
lot that needs to be done in that effort. And secondly, to establish
basic international law and international institutions that you
need for global, open society. So that’s my sort of broad concept.
Now, I have not worked out the details, because I don’t think
it’s for me to work out the details. It’s for them to work out
the details.
The
"details," apparently, are the crumbs of power from
the big table that the squalid little nation-states are left while
the enlightened global elite feast on the big issues. But what
is "open society"? It’s "a society that holds itself
open to change and improvement." Hold yourself open, now,
and open wide (or bend over) because we’re coming in. Soros’s
"open society" in practice makes national governments
into less than governments. They can be administrative subdivisions
of the new global order and deal with "details" but
they can’t be truly sovereign because that would mean they weren’t
part of the Open Society. Don’t try to keep any secrets from us
enlightened globalists because we control the capital and we will
brand you as "closed" and therefore evil. But since
a government without secrets isn’t really a government, there
can be no sovereign governments in the Open Society.
Soros’s
ideology calls for a civilian "complement" to NATO –
the "Open Society Alliance" – consisting of the US,
European Union, and a "critical mass of democratic countries
from the periphery of the capitalist system." But he never
says how it’s supposed to work.
The
Open Society Alliance would be concerned with establishing and
preserving those preconditions: a democratic constitution, the
rule of law, freedom of speech and press, an independent judiciary,
and other important aspects of liberty… The Open Society Alliance
would have to establish its own criteria in full awareness of
its own fallibility. It would give each society the greatest possible
latitude in deciding its own character.
~
Soros, Open Society
He
speaks of an "alliance" like it’s a person. How else
could it be "in full awareness of its own fallibility"?
And what is the "greatest possible latitude" supposed
to mean? Is Belarus – which he has condemned – a less "open
society" than the Republic of Georgia? I guess that depends
on whether you’re viewing the situation from a Manhattan townhouse
or from inside one of Shevardnadze’s filthy prison cells. For
that matter, how does he define "democratic" and "the
rule of law"? Well… "open society"!
One
of the things lost in the amorphous mass of lofty words and phrases
is the notion that the most important element of freedom in any
society is the basic trust people have in their ability to select
their representatives or leaders. Is it more important that the
citizens of a nation-state have confidence that their votes will
count when they cast their ballots, or that the head of state
or government agrees with "open society"? Because the
way things are right now, the United States – which Soros describes
as "the greatest open society in the world" – is entrusting
the organization of elections to figures schooled in a system
that used sham elections as evidence of popular support, funding
those people, and congratulating ourselves on the triumph of democracy
and "openness" around the world when they pull off a
stunning victory and continue to do our bidding. If that sort
of corrupt imperialism is compatible with "open society"
then I’m setting up the Closed Society Institute.
THE
SOROSIAN MINISTRY OF PLENTY
A
few years ago, Soros advocated a globally centralized financial
clearinghouse or "international central bank" that would
leave money in the hands of those (i.e., Soros) who really know
how to lend it while leaving details of allocation to nation-states
as they’re eroding. From the right-wing perspective, the problem
with this vision is that it offers no substitute for national
sovereignty over the medium of exchange. The image of the Queen
of England on the British currency is not supposed to be merely
aesthetic, but to represent collective faith in the integrity
of an institution. From the left-wing perspective, entrusting
management of the common weal to a global "financial elite"
doesn’t sound very egalitarian.
In
Open Society, Soros concedes that his international central
bank idea proved too "radical" at the time. Although
he doesn’t say so, it would finish off what’s left of Western
civilization. This is because – leaving aside the fact that the
Sorosian globalist vision does not appeal to traditional Western
notions like duty, honor, courage, decency, loyalty, and so forth
– there’s that little matter of currency as a "legal fiction."
The US dollar is formally backed by the "full faith and credit
of the US government" (the "servant" of the People),
but the Sorosian globo-dollar is backed by…? There isn’t a government
with popular confidence to give the Sorosian Central Bank "Western"
integrity. Soros may know that, although he has invested so much
time in putting the legal fiction of his money between himself
and ordinary people that he may have skipped this little "detail."
So his global clearinghouse still feels less like a proper central
bank than a global "Gosbank." Gosbank was the old Soviet
institution that monitored all transactions within the USSR’s
"Gosplan" – a sort of "managed chaos" like
the New World Order. However, as long as the New World Order is
going to be managed chaos, why couldn’t Soros be World Minister
of Plenty (or something bigger)? On the bright side, the Sorosian
Gosbank would provide a lot of "jobs." Aspiring applicants
may want to start getting fitted for their Outer Party overalls
right now.
A
writer for Rolling Stone asked Soros why any citizen, anywhere
in the world, should trust a remote and powerful governing body
acting exclusively in the interests of global finance. His answer:
"I don’t think the broad swath of Americans are sitting in
a very good position to control credit stores in the world. I
mean, it’s a pretty specialized and technical thing." That’s
democracy for you. Damn those stupid proles.
SOROS
AND THE PROLES
I
can already discern the makings of the final crisis… Indigenous
political movements are likely to arise that will seek to expropriate
the multinational corporations and recapture the "national"
wealth. Some of them may succeed in the manner of the Boxer Rebellion
or the Zapatista Revolution. Their success may then shake the
confidence of financial markets, engendering a self-reinforcing
process on the downside.
~Soros,
The
Crisis of Global Capitalism
Compare
that with:
You
are imagining that there is something called human nature which
will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we
create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable. Or perhaps
you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the
slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They
are helpless, like the animals. Humanity is the Party. The others
are outside – irrelevant.
~
Orwell, 1984
Soros
expresses trepidation about the proles, hinting that a global
hierarchy may be needed to keep them under control, while O’Brien
is utterly sure of their defenselessness. Since O’Brien is the
future and Soros is now, Soros may want to speed up world government
and consolidate its civilian and military institutions. The alternative
is for the corrupt political and financial elites to possibly
lose their privileges and be torn to pieces by the angry hordes.
THE
SOROSIAN MINISTRY OF TRUTH
A
careful study of a Soros-sponsored website – Transitions
Online – gives some idea of the ideology of "open
society" in practice. There are lots of "analytical"
articles and bits of commentary on it about the level of "freedom"
and "openness" in various countries, although definitions
are skipped. On the recent Czech TV crisis, for example, Transitions
explains that the recently removed director had "political
connections." A media boss with political connections? Imagine
that in America. And Transitions goes on to critique the
media situation in Poland and Slovakia in a similar vein. Media
officials aren’t "independent" – i.e., they’re
dependent on the wrong thing. In the US, huge corporate conglomerates
control the media, and employees had better toe the line or they
could find themselves out of a job. That’s "independent."
The Transitions tactic is evidently to constantly pressure
and criticize the media in other countries until they abandon
all attempts to define public interest in any way other than embracing
multi-culti globalism and a worship-the-money-god worldview.
The
fact is that all news, even the most basic wire report, has to
reflect some political perspective simply by virtue of emphasizing
some events or facts relative to others. What makes some piece
of news more important than another for a given society? The Sorosians
decide because Soros knows he’s right, just as Lenin knew
he was right. But to us little folk, the idea that some
"international" NGO can come into a sovereign country
and decide how "independent" the media is on behalf
of the country’s inhabitants is sinister to say the least.
How
about the rule of law? Here is Transitions Online on the
Yugoslav Constitution:
[I]n
his conversations with Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic,
Kostunica's insistence that constitutional procedures be strictly
followed shows his schizophrenia. His stance is in line with his
views on legalist consistency – if Montenegro respected the Yugoslav
Constitution, secession would not even be an issue. But his insistence
also shows his political inflexibility. The Yugoslav Constitution
was more a private vehicle for Milosevic to stay in power than
it was the supreme law of the land. It is hard to expect that
anyone –except Kostunica – could take it seriously.
"Schizophrenia"?
This passage barely merits comment except to say that it should
be for the people of Yugoslavia to decide whether to take their
constitution seriously. Who elected Soros and his minions? Not
me, and not the citizenry of Yugoslavia.
AMERICA,
THE NWO, AND THE SOROSIAN INNER PARTY
In
many ways, the "privilegentsia" of the ex-Soviet Bloc
is better suited to the bureaucratic, NGO-dominated New World
Order than the highest elite of the West. Soros has shown no reluctance
to confer legitimacy on and support ex-nomenklatura figures
who have reincarnated themselves as great democrats. As long as
the United States continues to bankroll the major NGOs and slots
the old Eastern Bloc elite into top positions at top salary, it
will gradually build a more and more solid foundation for the
political apparat of the post-Western world – a hybrid of corrupt
corporate capitalism and socialism.
George
Soros is a key agent in this process. He has been described as
the "stateless statesman" even though he’s a US citizen,
and the United States is really the perfect state from which Soros
could claim citizenship and operate his NGOs worldwide. The reason
is simple: no one is truly "in charge." In Machiavelli’s
timeless work The Prince, a strong, centralized state is
seen as the best guardian of the rights and well-being of the
People. Soros claims that on the national level, this is bad because
it isn’t "open society." That’s why he wants to undermine
the benevolent leadership of Alexander Lukashenka in Belarus.
The Belarussian leader is a thorn in the globalists’ side, and
hampers their drive to do away with national sovereignty or popular
government.
It
may be a "petty" concern to someone like Soros, but
I like the fact that there are different countries in the world.
I don’t want war, but what a dull world it would be if all the
peoples of the world suddenly marched entranced into a drab, one-world
"Open Society." Would all the shysters, charlatans and
tricksters suddenly disappear at the same time? Somehow, we’re
expected to take it on faith that Soros’s global political design
– his "Open Society" – wouldn’t turn into a corrupt,
centralized tyranny. That’s why Soros is a false prophet. In his
business he knows the shysters are out there, so he’s too smart
to believe his own vision.
THE
UNITED STATES: A SOCIETY NOT YET "OPEN"
America
is both the problem and the solution at the same time. It is the
problem because it is the engine of the New World Order, pursuing
a policy of assimilating states for the sake of assimilation,
and intervening in the internal affairs of foreign states in every
way possible to reify that ideology. And America is the solution
because it is the last truly sovereign entity – the last domino
– in the West.
Soros’s
description of the US as "the greatest open society in the
world" doesn’t fit his own definitions, and he surely knows
it. Our government still has secrets, and that means it has sovereign
power. Unfortunately for some of us, it is using that sovereign
power to spread junk culture and corrupt corporate capitalism
cloaked in the phony ideology of political correctness and democracy.
It doesn’t take an understanding of Soros mentor Karl Popper’s
critique of logical positivism or his ability to demarcate science
from pseudo-science to see that – logically – the more America
makes the other states like itself, the more it becomes like them.
Does anyone but me think that might come back to haunt us some
day?
So
either Soros is a great American patriot who revels in US power
because of all its great cultural accomplishments and the "openness"
it’s spreading in the world, or he’s an American by passport alone,
and longs for the day when America is tossed into the dustbin
of History along with the memory of the West. One thing seems
certain though, and that is that Soros wants global assimilation
to continue. Where it will lead is anyone’s guess.
THINK
IT’S SO GROOVY NOW, THAT PEOPLE ARE FINALLY GETTING TOGETHER…
On
February 1, when President George W. Bush held his "National
Prayer Breakfast" at the White House, several foreign dignitaries
were invited. Among them were Milo Djukanovic (US-backed President
of Montenegro), Zoran Djindjic (US-backed Prime Minister of Serbia),
and Cacak Mayor Velimir Ilic. Bush has shown every intention of
giving "continuity" to the Clinton administration’s
policy of backing these unpopular figures, who may pray to something
but it probably doesn’t look anything like what Dubya prays to.
Djindjic
is a former professional Marxist philosopher who mixed with the
radical left in Germany in the 1970s, on the fringes of the terrorist
Bader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Fraction. Djukanovic and his
gang of leather-jacketed spivs have managed to turn Montenegro
into a paradise of "reform" (i.e., a dump of corruption)
since taking over in a very dubious election in 1997. Ilic led
a band of mercenaries and paid thugs to loot and burn his own
country’s federal parliament building. As for Soros, I still don’t
know whether he was there physically or not but he had to be there
in spirit. Last year he established the first international bank
in Djukanovic’s Montenegro with initial capital of $5 million.
So
far, George W. Bush has said he’s committed to "bringing
people together in Worshington, DC" but other than that,
his "vision thing" is about as vague as his dad’s was.
If his dad, Dick Cheney or the CIA’s daily brief tells him that
what’s good for business is good for democracy, he’ll take it
on faith as the word of good Christians. Bush may be a decent
man compared to Clinton, but that really isn’t saying much, is
it? Dubya hasn’t really been anywhere in the world, and for all
his affability it’s still hard to avoid the impression that –
on the foreign policy stage, at any rate – he’s anything more
than a shill for Big Oil.
I
didn’t watch the prayer breakfast, and I don’t know if Djukanovic
and party ever even made it. But I couldn’t get one very vivid
picture out of my head when I thought about them attending. It
was an image of President Bush with his head bowed, eyes clenched
tight, and his face straining with the full intensity of his religious
faith as the prayer was recited. Meanwhile, Djukanovic and Djindjic
– heads also bowed but eyes not closed – swapped glances at each
other with inaudible sniggering. Words were unnecessary, because
the eyes said it all. We’ve made it, they were saying. We’re finally
here. We’ve arrived.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
A
contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's
out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets
on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
or
Have an e-gold account?
Contribute to Antiwar.com via e-gold.
Our account number is 130325
Your
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible
|
