Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

If you caught my last post, you know that I am currently reading George Soros’ 2006 book The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. That post focused on the book’s prologue. This one will cover its introduction. One good thing about the introduction is that it doesn’t make you wait as long as the prologue for a laugh. I mentioned in the last post that Soros is the gift who keeps on giving when it comes to offering material for his critics, and he really outdoes himself with this little gem (which he presents as an explanation for why he considers the “autobiographical approach” of his writings to be a “major disadvantage”):

“I shall not be able to avoid blowing my own horn.”

Currently there are articles coming out of the woodwork to denounce Soros’ critics as categorically anti-Semitic. As I mentioned in the last post, many of the criticisms levied against him are, in my opinion, well-supported by his own statements. His own words have confirmed my suspicion that he wants to bring about radical change in the way that the United States operates internally and in relationship to the rest of the world. And this latest quote initially seemed to confirm some of my more subjective opinions of him as well. I mentioned in the post about the prologue that I felt he was “tooting” his own horn. (I had not read the introduction at that time.) I now realize that he is likely being facetious in the above quote, but it was hard for me to tell at first.

One theme that started in the prologue and is amplified dramatically in the introduction is language that sounds very much like that used by President George W. Bush when he was promoting the war in Iraq. As I mentioned in the last post, this is very ironic as this book is supposed to be an indictment of Bush’s foreign policy. It appears that this irony is lost on Soros, because he sets up a dichotomy between Bush and himself in the prologue when he describes Bush’s agenda as “nationalistic.” In my opinion, Bush was more of a globalist than a nationalist, although I would argue that his brand of globalism was distinct from Soros’ and not as extreme as Soros’.

Fun fact: the Snowflake Club has decided that “globalist” is an inherently anti-Semitic term. Even though I am a critic of globalism, I don’t use the term “globalist” as a slur. I use it as an objective descriptor of anyone who supports the elimination of economic and geographic barriers between nations.

Food for thought: Is it ok to refer to a non-Jew as a “globalist”? If so, why? If the word is so triggering, shouldn’t we stop saying it altogether so that Jews don’t accidentally overhear it? And how many of the people who are so convinced that the word “globalist” is inherently anti-Semitic are themselves Jewish? Is this like the “white privilege” movement where you see a mixture of perpetual victims from the oppressed class and guilt-ridden liberals from the oppressor class? If so, it is the most entertaining of all race-baiting spectacles, because many Jews are the same color as their oppressors and alleged oppressors. So what you end up with here is a bunch of white folks whining and virtue signaling to everybody else. Which, ironically, might be a real example of white privilege. (Not to mention that a disciple of Louis Farrakhan is just as likely to be truly anti-Semitic as a disciple of David Duke.) Mind.Blown.

Bonus fun fact: The Snowflake Club is the last group of people who should be trashing critics of globalism. They are giving globalism the middle finger every Saturday when they’re drooling over the produce at the farmers’ market instead of whatever’s on offer from Monsanto at the supermarket.

In addition to using Bush-like language to describe the United States’ proper role on the world stage, Soros does a little Bush-style flag-waving in the introduction. He refers to the United States as the “oldest and most successful open society,” and as you may recall from the first post, Soros states that his dream is to see a “global open society.” So “open society” is very high praise from him. However, in his view, the United States is both a “victim of misconceptions” and “a ‘feel-good’ society unwilling to face unpleasant reality.” I actually agree with both of those characterizations. Nevertheless, I suspect that Soros and I have very different views of the precise nature of the underlying problems and even more different views when it comes to solutions.

Soros goes on to say, “Unless this feel-good attitude can be changed, the United States is doomed to lose its dominant position in the world. There will be serious adverse consequences not only for America but also for the world.” The very last paragraph of the prologue contains predictions that sound even more dire: “There is no other country that can take the place of the United States in the foreseeable future. If the United States fails to provide the right kind of leadership our civilization may destroy itself.”

These statements are very confusing to me because they sound very much like Bush’s brand of globalism (that is, a global society dominated by the United States). I was under the impression that Soros’ globalism was one in which power would be centered in supranational organizations, such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court, with no one nation having dominance. Perhaps a conglomeration such as the European Union or a North American Union would have dominance, but a nation wouldn’t, because all or most nations would have been subsumed into larger units.

So there are two possibilities here, both of which involve Soros being less than forthcoming about his worldview.

1) My understanding of Soros’ philosophy is inaccurate, and his globalism is closer to Bush’s globalism than he is willing to explicitly admit, at least in the beginning of the book. In this scenario, his motivation for concealment would be political. If he had come right out and admitted how similar his worldview was to Bush’s, the Democrats would have been widely criticized (much sooner) for having him as a donor. (Of course they could have just found ways to go completely “underground” about their relationship with him. That probably worked for Bush. This is not an accusation, at this point, of some extensive relationship between Bush and Soros. Rather, it is just a reflection that it would be very surprising to me if Soros doesn’t regularly contribute to both candidates in major races.)

If this ends up being true, it will not shatter my views on globalism, because I think both of these forms of globalism are harmful. The difference between them is primarily philosophical, rather than practical. So you end up with the same bad results even though the rhetoric is different. Also, Soros’ globalism may be more extreme than Bush’s, but I think that one could argue that a Soros global society is what inevitably emerges once a Bush global society inevitably reaches the point where it can no longer sustain itself.

OR

2) Soros is mischaracterizing his own philosophy to make it sound more palatable to his readers, particularly, I would argue, fans of Bush. By appearing to endorse American exceptionalism, he is staying within the comfort zones of many “ordinary” Americans, Democrat and Republican.

Soros might be worried about scaring “ordinary” Americans, but he is certainly not worried about talking down to them. Remember when he said that our society is a “victim of misconceptions”? Turns out he attributes this to the fact that Americans “are not well versed in philosophy and they do not fully understand the principles of open society.”

In my opinion, that sentence implies two untruths:

1) Unless you are “well versed in philosophy,” you are doomed to be a mindless sheep.

You don’t have to know who Aristotle was to know when something “doesn’t pass the smell test.” And I happen to think that proper use of the smell test is a necessary and sufficient condition for being an informed citizen.

AND

2) You are not “well versed in philosophy” unless you “fully understand” a philosophy that is less than a century old.

In this part of the sentence, Soros is operating on two separate assumptions. The first is that he himself has a perfect understanding of “open society.” Fun fact: before I started reading this book, I thought that Soros was the one who had coined the term “open society.” (Wonder why?) But while reading the introduction, I did a Google search and found out that it was coined in the 1930s – and not by a toddler George Soros. Although I guess it’s possible that the credit for coining it was stolen from him. Just when you think anti-Semitism can’t sink any lower, it steals recognition from Jewish baby geniuses.

The second assumption is that “open society” is a perfect philosophy that, when properly implemented, can alleviate all the woes of mankind. I’m sure Soros has a fancy-sounding explanation for why he thinks this is so. But I happen to believe that the best things in life cannot be fully understood. Pope St. John Paul II’s quote on the Eucharist comes to mind:

“In that little Host is the solution to all the problems of the world.”

Somebody better get the smelling salts for the Snowflake Club. And once they wake up, I am going to tell them that they are anti-Semitic for being triggered by the body, blood, soul, and divinity of a Jew.

Verso l’alto,
Megan