Popper on Hegel to Soros to You

This will be more of a watercolor pastel sketch of a “Dig Here!” than anything with profound in detail conclusions.


Because the Popper tome is about 800 pages in two volumes all by itself. All of it is full of jargon-of-philosophy that is rich in insider terms named for various people or prior terms, none of it in generic English, much of it a bit daft, and all of it obstruse. Obstruse, btw, being an obscure and misleading form of abstruse, which can be interpreted as meaning obscure and misleading ;-)

So after that, you get to dig into Hegel and all the little Hegels. Left Hegelian, Right Hegelian, and the usually ignored Center Hegelian. (So far I’ve only found one of them…) That takes a few dozen volumes and a few tens of thousands of pages of further self congratulatory metal masturbation by the various authors. At the end of which you feel a bit sullied and find yourself in the bathroom with a tall vodka/rocks looking for the mental floss…

So I’m not going to inflict all that on you against your will. Heck, I’ve not even managed to inflict all of it on me. I’ve only read spots of Popper, and second hand summaries of Hagel and the Hagelites. Maybe 500 pages total? (Not counting the Marx I read in the past… yes, Karl Marx was a Left Hegelian… so yes, it matters.)

Basically, I’m going to give the minimum pointer to all that stuff, with just a few sample quotes to illustrate why it is the source rock for so much grief in the world today, link it to Soros and his goals, then suggest mostly that folks just read the Popper book as it is very well written, easy to read, and at times a bit juicy.

With that, when you start thinking this is a bit long and convoluted, just remember this is the very shortest form and with the jargon unrolled as much as I can.

So how to approach it. Historical forward? Soros to his roots in Aristotle and Plato? Middle out starting with Popper?

Maybe a top sketch, then some depth on bits of it, then some paint by numbers connections…

I’ll be putting the commentary on Hegel in a separate posting, just as this will be far too long if all done at once. Here we will give the sketch, then some on Soros and Popper.

The Big Bits

OK, Soros is the spider in the middle of a global web of organizations attempting to remake the world into his idea of what is best. He has spent $Billions funding Open Society Foundations around the world, supported “Color Revolutions” (more on that in some other post someday) in various countries, has an arrest warrant out from Russia (since they suspect he wants to paint them with a color of revolution), funds groups like Black Lives Matter to suddenly pop up tossing rocks at national governments and sends personal email to folks like Hillary Clinton… or her surrogates. Maybe knowing “why?” and some about his motivations would be helpful to understanding the upheaval in the world and why some folks, like Obama, are hell bent on the destruction of America and happy to import millions who hate us. Obama, too, gets pats on the head from Soros…

The clue is in the Open Society Foundations.

These are not named randomly, or from some flowery ideal. They are named after a BOOK and IDEA that is foundational to how Soros sees the world. That book is “The Open Society and It’s Enemies” by Karl Popper. Yes, that Popper…

That book is largely a critique of Hagel and those who follow him. For anyone not aware of who Hagel was, his musing laid the basis both for the Nazi attempt at empire, and the Marxism that is still trying to dominate the world. Now you might think it a noble act to attempt to support anyone who was against such stuff. It is my assertion that Soros has a warped view of what Popper is saying, and then runs off a cliff with it.

It is a common behaviour amoung the very bright to run to extremes of an ideal, and not see the vast gray areas that make up the real world real people live with. It is my opinion that Soros, growing up as Schwartz in Nazi “greater” Germany, saw first hand the results of a “State As Superior Being” as advocated by Hagel, and was left scarred with it for life. Popper critiques this as a horrible thing (and it was) via the term “Tribalism” and the occasional reference to Nationalism. Here’s where I think Soros went off the rails. IMHO, he now believes that the root cause of all the world’s problems are Tribalism and Nationalism, and if he can just stamp out Tribes and Nations, the world will be a happy ideal place. Thus the destruction of “Tribes” such as presently in the Middle east, and the destruction of Nations going on now with the EU and massive Muslim imports (and to a lesser extent, the USA and our non-border and massive muslim importation.)

OK, that’s the whole idea. Those uninterested in any supportive information can pop a beer now and turn on the TV…


There’s a decent bio thumbnail on the wiki:


I’m going to stick some bits here so when the Wiki Langoliers re-write history, it won’t all be erased…

George Soros (/ˈsɔːroʊs/[3] or /ˈsɔːrɒs/; Hungarian: Soros György, pronounced [ˈʃoroʃ ˈɟørɟ]; born August 12, 1930, as György Schwartz; Hungarian: Schwartz György) is a Hungarian-American business magnate,[4][5] investor, philanthropist, political activist, and author.[a] He is chairman of Soros Fund Management. He is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England” because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, making him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.[8][9][10] Soros is one of the 30 richest people in the world.[11]

Soros is a well known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes.[12] Between 1979 and 2011 Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes.[13][14] He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Eastern Europe (1984–89)[9] and provided one of Europe’s largest higher education endowments to the Central European University in Budapest.[15] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Foundations.

Early life

Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, to a non-observant Jewish family. His mother, Elizabeth (also known as Erzsébet), came from a family that owned a thriving silk shop. His father, Tivadar, (also known as Teodoro) was a lawyer[16] and had been a prisoner of war during and after World War I until he escaped from Russia and rejoined his family in Budapest.[17][18] The two married in 1924. Tivadar was an Esperantist writer and taught Soros to speak Esperanto in his childhood.[19] Soros later said that he grew up in a Jewish home and that his parents were cautious with their religious roots.[20] In 1936, his father changed the family name from Schwartz (“black” in German) to Soros (a successor in Hungarian or will soar in Esperanto).

Soros was 13 years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary.[21] When Jewish children were barred from attending school by the Nazis, Soros and the other schoolchildren were made to report to the Jewish Council, which had been established during the occupation. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:

The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper…. It said report to the rabbinical seminary at 9 am… And I was given this list of names. I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, “You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported.”[22]

Soros did not return to that job and went into hiding the next day. Later that year, at age 14, Soros lived with and posed as the godson of an employee of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture. The official was at one point ordered to inventory the remaining contents of the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country; rather than leave Soros alone in the city, the official brought him along.[23] The next year, 1945, Soros survived the Battle of Budapest, in which Soviet and German forces fought house to house through the city.

I think that pretty much set his persona. This next bit points out why I think the philosophy angle is an important one:

In 1951 Soros earned a Bachelor of Science in philosophy and an MSc in philosophy in 1954, both from the London School of Economics.

He was clearly interested in Philosophy… along with money.

Then, after a listing of his life working for other people, there’s this interesting bit. I note in passing that Krugman is at least willing to state the obvious…

In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, accused Soros of using the wealth under his control to punish the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for welcoming Myanmar as a member. Following on a history of antisemitic remarks, Mahathir made specific reference to Soros’s Jewish background (“It is a Jew who triggered the currency plunge”[49]) and implied Soros was orchestrating the crash as part of a larger Jewish conspiracy. Nine years later, in 2006, Mahathir met with Soros and afterward stated that he accepted that Soros had not been responsible for the crisis.[50] In 1998’s The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered Soros explained his role in the crisis as follows:

The financial crisis that originated in Thailand in 1997 was particularly unnerving because of its scope and severity…. By the beginning of 1997, it was clear to Soros Fund Management that the discrepancy between the trade account and the capital account was becoming untenable. We sold short the Thai baht and the Malaysian ringgit early in 1997 with maturities ranging from six months to a year. (That is, we entered into contracts to deliver at future dates Thai baht and Malaysian ringgit that we did not currently hold.) Subsequently Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia accused me of causing the crisis, a wholly unfounded accusation. We were not sellers of the currency during or several months before the crisis; on the contrary, we were buyers when the currencies began to decline—we were purchasing ringgits to realize the profits on our earlier speculation. (Much too soon, as it turned out. We left most of the potential gain on the table because we were afraid that Mahathir would impose capital controls. He did so, but much later.)[51]

In 1999, economist Paul Krugman was critical of Soros’s effect on financial markets.

“[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”[52]

In an interview regarding the late-2000s recession, Soros referred to it as the most serious crisis since the 1930s. According to Soros, market fundamentalism with its assumption that markets will correct themselves with no need for government intervention in financial affairs has been “some kind of an ideological excess”. In Soros’s view, the markets’ moods—a “mood” of the markets being a prevailing bias or optimism/pessimism with which the markets look at reality—”actually can reinforce themselves so that there are these initially self-reinforcing but eventually unsustainable and self-defeating boom/bust sequences or bubbles.”[53]

In reaction to the late-2000s recession, he founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking in October 2009. This is a think tank composed of international economic, business, and financial experts, mandated to investigate radical new approaches to organizing the international economic and financial system.

All well and good, one supposes, but he does like to meddle inside governments and screw with nations, so I’d be a bit worried about what the goal of “new approaches” to the “organizing” might be…

Soros has been active as a philanthropist since the 1970s, when he began providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa,[68] and began funding dissident movements behind the Iron Curtain.

Soros’ philanthropic funding includes efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states. These efforts, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, occur primarily through the Open Society Foundations (originally Open Society Institute or OSI) and national Soros Foundations, which sometimes go under other names (such as the Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland). As of 2003, PBS estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion.[61] The OSI says it has spent about $500 million annually in recent years.

The Russians see the “Color Revolutions” that came from that funding as a bit less good and disruptive. That those nations then didn’t really get to BE fully formed nations before being ‘encouraged’ to join various conglomerates ( such as the EU ) will not have gone unnoticed by Putin. This is the subtext to the “Eastward expansion of the EU”. NOT just liberation from Communism, but destruction of Nationalism and absorption into a non-National super-entity.

Want to know where the money comes from to “pop up” sudden coordinated “protests” by the left in the USA (and elsewhere in the world)? How about:

Political donations and activism
United States

On November 11, 2003, in an interview with The Washington Post, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the “central focus of my life” and “a matter of life and death”. He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat Bush “if someone guaranteed it”.[76][77] Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[78] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004, he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multistate tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[79] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as “factcheck.com” in the vice presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros’s site.[80]

His 2003 book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, was a forthright critique of the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” as misconceived and counterproductive, and a polemic against the re-election of Bush. He explains the title in the closing chapter by pointing out the parallels in this political context with the self-reinforcing reflexive processes that generate bubbles in stock prices.

When Soros was asked in 2006 about his statement in The Age of Fallibility that “the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States”, he responded that “it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that’s rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a ‘war on terror’ after September 11, we set the wrong agenda for the world…. When you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims.”[81]

Soros was not a large donor to U.S. political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003–04 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups (tax-exempt groups under the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527). The groups aimed to defeat President Bush. After Bush’s re-election Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance, which supports progressive causes and the formation of a stronger progressive infrastructure in America.[82]

In August 2009 Soros donated $35 million to the state of New York to be earmarked for underprivileged children and given to parents who had benefit cards at the rate of $200 per child aged 3 through 17, with no limit as to the number of children that qualified. An additional $140 million was put into the fund by the state of New York from money they had received from the 2009 federal recovery act.[25]

On October 26, 2010, Soros donated $1 million, the largest donation in the campaign, to the Drug Policy Alliance to fund Proposition 19, that would have legalized marijuana in the state of California if it had passed in the November 2, 2010 elections.[83]

In October 2011 a Reuters story, “Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests”, was published after several commentators pointed out errors in an earlier Reuters story headlined “Who’s behind the Wall St. protests?” with a lede stating that the Occupy Wall Street movement “may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world’s richest men [Soros].” Reuters’ follow-up article also reported a Soros spokesman and Adbusters’ co-founder Kalle Lasn both saying that Adbusters—the reputed catalyst for the first Occupy Wall Street protests—had never received any contributions from Soros, contrary to Reuters’ earlier story that reported that “indirect financial links” existed between the two as late as 2010.[84][85]

On September 27, 2012, Soros announced that he was donating $1 million to the super PAC backing President Barack Obama’s reelection Priorities USA Action.[86]

In October 2013, Soros donated $25,000 to Ready for Hillary, becoming a co-chairman of the super PAC’s national finance committee.[87] In June 2015, he donated $1 million to the Super PAC Priorities USA Action, which supports Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. Since then he has donated an additional $6 million to the PAC to support Clinton.

Now you know why Obama and Clinton BOTH want to destroy US Nationalism and make a weaker America. Their sugar daddy wants it.

But his desire to shape the world to his liking does not stop with the USA:

Central and Eastern Europe

[PICTURE left out]
Protesters in Tbilisi with flag of the Democratic Republic of Georgia blocking the way from the Open Society Institute office, 2005

According to Waldemar A. Nielsen, an authority on American philanthropy,[89] “[Soros] has undertaken … nothing less than to open up the once-closed communist societies of Eastern Europe to a free flow of ideas and scientific knowledge from the outside world.”[90] From 1979, as an advocate of ‘open societies’, Soros financially supported dissidents including Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.[68] In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary with a budget of $3 million.[91]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Soros’s funding has continued to play an important role in the former Soviet sphere. His funding of prodemocratic programs in Georgia was considered by Russian and Western observers to be crucial to the success of the Rose Revolution, although Soros has said that his role has been “greatly exaggerated”.[92] Alexander Lomaia, Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and former Minister of Education and Science, is a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation), overseeing a staff of 50 and a budget of $2.5 million.[93]

Former Georgian foreign minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote that institutions like the Soros Foundation were the cradle of democratisation and that all the NGOs that gravitated around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. She opines that after the revolution the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.[94]

Some Soros-backed pro-democracy initiatives have been banned in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.[95] Ercis Kurtulus, head of the Social Transparency Movement Association (TSHD) in Turkey, said in an interview that “Soros carried out his will in Ukraine and Georgia by using these NGOs… Last year Russia passed a special law prohibiting NGOs from taking money from foreigners. I think this should be banned in Turkey as well.”[96] In 1997, Soros closed his foundation in Belarus after it was fined $3 million by the government for “tax and currency violations”. According to The New York Times, the Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko has been widely criticized in the West and in Russia for his efforts to control the Belarus Soros Foundation and other independent NGOs and to suppress civil and human rights. Soros called the fines part of a campaign to “destroy independent society”.[97]

In June 2009, Soros donated $100 million to Central Europe and Eastern Europe to counter the impact of the economic crisis on the poor, voluntary groups and non-government organisations.[98]

Now this is all couched in the Positive Flowery Language Of Leftspeak. IMHO, the critical eye of those more Eastern has spotted the Nation Destroying Rat and kicked it out. That is the fundamental philosophical fight today. Those who are “pro-Nation”, whatever their nation may be, and the “Non-Nationals” lead by Soros and his money.

IF you value your nation, be it Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Germany, Australia, the USA or “wherever”, then do realize you are under attack by NGOs, funded and directed by Soros, who’s main goal is to eliminate “Tribalism” and “Nationalism”, that is, your Nation as a Nation. Your culture as a culture.

His history and track record show this is not a theory, but a report of historical fact.

Now, any wonder why Obama and Hillary are so “pro-regime change”? And for the destruction of “tribal” “nationalistic” societies such as in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. etc…


The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa is a Soros-affiliated organization.[99] Its director for Zimbabwe is Godfrey Kanyenze, who also directs the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which was the main force behind the founding of the Movement for Democratic Change, the principal indigenous organization promoting regime change in Zimbabwe.

Support of separatist movements

In November 2005, Soros said: “My personal opinion is there’s no alternative but to give Kosovo independence.“[100] Soros has helped fund the non-profit group called Independent Diplomat.[101] It represented Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (under military occupation by Turkey since 1974),[102] Somaliland and the Polisario Front of Western Sahara.[101]

So he likes to overthrow regimes. Now I find some of those regimes despicable tyrannies, but that doesn’t give me the right to say they must go. More importantly, I’ve got no issue with, say, the Navajo or anyone else wanting a bit of pride in their “tribe”. Even beyond that, I’m quite happy to have a bit of National Pride in my Nation, made of all sorts of Tribes… Soros wants that exterminated and replaced with his concept of an “Open Society”. But one is left wondering just what that is.

The Wiki then goes into his theory of “reflexivity” that, as near as I can tell, just says that feedback systems are prone to overshot and rebound. Not exactly very enlightening. You can get a much better workup of that from control engineers… He then wants to apply this to politics. One must note in passing that Hegel was very into the idea of a force, rebound, and then final push through. More on that under Hegel. So IMHO we are just seeing some Hegel showing through in how he sees markets and governments.

The concept of reflexivity attempts to explain why markets moving from one equilibrium state to another tend to overshoot or undershoot. Soros’ theories were originally dismissed by economists,[114] but have received more attention after the 2008 crash including becoming the focus of an issue of the Journal of Economic Methodology.

Perhaps a controls engineer can enlighten the Journal Of Economic Methodology that this isn’t really very new…

Reflexivity in politics

Although the primary manifestation of the reflexive process that Soros discusses is its effects in the financial markets, he has also explored its effects in politics. He has stated that whereas the greatest threats to the “Open Society” in the past were from Communism and Fascism (as discussed in The Open Society and its Enemies by his mentor Karl Popper), the largest current threat is from market fundamentalism.

He has suggested that the contemporary domination of world politics and world trade by the United States is a reflexive phenomenon, insofar as the success of military and financial coercion feeds back to encourage increasingly intense applications of the same policies to the point where they will eventually become unsustainable.[120]

View of problems in the free market system

Soros argues that the current system of financial speculation undermines healthy economic development in many underdeveloped countries. He blames many of the world’s problems on the failures inherent in what he characterizes as market fundamentalism.[121]

Soros claims to draw a distinction between being a participant in the market and working to change the rules that market participants must follow.

Here we see his disdain for markets. Now you know why the American Left (and Hillary and Obama and…) hate it when you propose a market based solution… Markets must be managed by government, don’t you know… Soros, and his NGO money told them so…

Also note that military “unsustainable” line. This philosophy is what drives Obama to gut the US Military. Hillary too. By gutting US military, they think they can avoid pushing the world to “the point where they will eventually become unsustainable”.

I’m skipping over the ‘views on Israel’. It mostly comes down to claim and counter claim on anti-Semitism and missing the point that he is anti-Nation and anti-Tribalism… so Israel is both..

Views on Europe

In October 2011, Soros drafted an open letter entitled “As concerned Europeans we urge Eurozone leaders to unite”,[128] in which he calls for a stronger economic government for Europe using federal means (Common EU treasury, common fiscal supervision, etc.) and warns against the danger of nationalistic solutions to the economic crisis. The letter was co-signed by Javier Solana, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Andrew Duff, Emma Bonino, Massimo d’Alema, Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

Soros criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his handling of the European migrant crisis in 2015: “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”[129]
Views on China

Soros has expressed concern about the growth of Chinese economic and political power saying, “China has risen very rapidly by looking out for its own interests…. They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well.” Regarding the political gridlock in America, he said, “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”[130] In July 2015, Soros stated that a “strategic partnership between the US and China could prevent the evolution of two power blocks that may be drawn into military conflict.”[131] In January 2016, during an interview at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Soros stated that “[a] hard landing is practically unavoidable.” Chinese state media responded by stating “Soros’ challenge to the RMB and Hong Kong dollar are doomed to fail, without any doubt.”[132]

So now you know why an ‘ever closer union’ in the EU was a Main Goal, and why Brexit was so fiercely fought. Soros, his money and his Foundations and NGOs all are fighting it.

Note, too, that National Borders and having your own culture are “the problem”…

But the interesting bit is that Putin has caught on:

Views on Russia and Ukraine

In May 2014 Soros told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent from Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.”[133]

In January 2015 Soros said that “Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia.” He also urged Western countries to expand economic sanctions against Russia for its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine.[134]

In January 2015, Soros called on the European Union to give $50 billion of bailout money to Ukraine.[135]

In July 2015, Soros stated that Putin’s annexation of Crimea was a challenge to the “prevailing world order,” specifically the European Union. He hypothesized that Putin wants to “destabilize all of Ukraine by precipitating a financial and political collapse for which he can disclaim responsibility, while avoiding occupation of a part of eastern Ukraine, which would then depend on Russia for economic support.”[131] In November 2015, Russia banned the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI)– two pro-democracy charities founded by Soros—stating they posed as “threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state.“[136][137] In January 2016, 53 books related to Soros’ “Renewal of Humanitarian Education” program were burned at Vorkuta Mining and Economic College in the Komi Republic with 427 additional books seized for shredding. A Russian intergovernmental letter released in December 2015 stated that Soros’ charities were “forming a perverted perception of history and making ideological directives, alien to Russian ideology, popular.”

So WHY would Hillary and Obama be against Putin, while Trump says, basically, I can work with the guy? Simple.

Obama and Hillary are Soros Sock Puppets working to destroy nations.
Putin and Trump are nationalist advocates, each for their own nation.

Yes, it really is that simple.


I’ll be quoting just a couple of passages from Popper to give a sense of it. The books are full of gems, one after the other, and snippets will not do it justice. Yet it is pushing 800 pages and a long read. So a bit of summary about it too.

The originals can be found at:

The Open Society and it’s Enemies, Vol 1

The Open Society and it’s Enemies, Vol 2

Reviewer: garthus – favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite – October 10, 2010
Subject: Required reading?
This work should be required reading at the University level. Better than the pablum students are forced to regurgutate on an almost daily basis in our Social Science culture today.

Reviewer: mafranco – favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite – October 9, 2010
Subject: Ethics
I agree with the previous two reviewers. I think that more than anything this books is the foundation for living an ethical life.
Reviewer: Graham W – favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite – March 7, 2010
Subject: Agreed, this book is Essential Reading for our day.

I can only agree with the apt and succinct words of the previous reviewer, FitzRoy, and with his conclusion that Karl Popper’s ‘The Open Society And Its Enemies Vol I & 2’ is ‘essential reading for our day’. Moreover, I believe this lucid and accessible work is a tour de force and one of the most important and significant books of the 20th Century. I first read it at university about 30 years ago and have read it several times since, and I still refer to it periodically.

Popper challenges accepted orthodoxies from long past and our longstanding deference to great historical figures such as Plato, and he so does because he believes that if we are to reconstruct society and avoid totalitarianism then we must break with mistakes of the past. Rather than plagiarize further, I refer you directly to the short well-written preface of this edition.

Whether one agrees with Popper’s assertions or not–and there has been some criticism of his position over the years–this erudite work forces us to reconsider and re-evaluate positions that have become almost axiomatic to most of us in Western liberal democracies. No matter what one’s political views, one has to acknowledge that ‘The Open Society And Its Enemies’ is the outpourings of a great mind; not only is it challenging, intellectual and authoritative but it also provides about the most solid defense of and argument for an open society, liberal democracy ever written.

‘The Open Society And Its Enemies’–along with Plato’s ‘Republic’, especially Part One about what is justice–have had a huge influence on my thinking with respect to governance of people in a free society, about democracy and of course, totalitarianism. These books have made me forever vigilant about authority, its motives and the propaganda that surrounds it.

With a substantial increase in authoritarian law across most Western democracies since 911, and with governments having almost unfettered access to and use of electronics and other surveillance technologies to monitor and control populations, together with their understanding of modern social engineering techniques and their application by way of sophisticated propaganda, we citizens, more than ever, need to understand what Popper is telling us in this invaluable and important work.

In ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’ Orwell describes a frightening dystopian totalitarian world; Popper, a few years earlier in ‘The Open Society And Its Enemies’ essentially explains how certain modes of thinking enable political climates wherein the formation of such dystopian worlds are not only possible but that they do eventuate. These books might have been born amongst the ashes of WW-II politics but they have never been more relevant than they are today.

Finally a thank you: The availability of such important and influential books on the Internet Archive is a testament to how very important this service is and I heartily congratulate Brewster Kahle and his colleagues for their broad and important initiative.

Reviewer: FitzRoy – favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite – March 7, 2010
Subject: Essential Reading for our day
I rate this book–along with its companion vol. 2–as among the top five most significant books of my life’s reading history. Just so you know, I have a PhD and I’m 52 years old, so I’ve been through a lot of books.

Popper understands the nature of totalitarian governments and what leads to them. In light of the way that so many people today are looking to government for their salvation, Popper is a must read. His insight into the way historicism is the root of totalitarianism is crucial if we are to avoid future totalitarian regimes and provides the reader with a key criterion for judging current political endeavors.

One caution, please don’t confuse Popper’s “Open Society” with George Soros’s “Open Society.” They are two totally different visions.

IMHO, that last sentence is key. Soros read Popper, hated Hagel, and then that hate mutated the Popper view into a hatred of all things “Tribal” or “National”. I think that dis-join is where the rational Popper turned into the Nation hating Soros.

Here’s the review from Volume 2:

The Open Society And Its Enemies Vol II
by Popper,K.R.

Published 1947/00/00
Topics PHILOSOPHY. PSYCHOLOGY, Philosophy of mind

Publisher George Routledge And Sons Limited.
Pages 366
Language English
Call number 33064
Book contributor Osmania University
Collection universallibrary

Reviewer: Graham W – favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite – March 7, 2010
Subject: See Review for Volume 1
I’ve reviewed ‘The Open Society And Its Enemies’ under Volume 1, here:


This is one of the most important and significant works of the 20th Century and both volumes should be treated as one entity.

What I’ve read of Vol. 1 spends a good bit of time connecting modern philosophers, such as Hegel, back to Plato and Socrates and Aristotle and generally is a good bit of background. It is heavy with philosophy terms, so be ready to hit the dictionary.

Then he launches into a strong criticism of Hegel. Hegel is where we find “Civil Society” coming into being, and where we get the roots of the Marxist “dialectic”.

Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions, such as those between the subject and object of knowledge, mind and nature, self and Other, freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Hegel’s main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called “the absolute Idea” (Science of Logic, sections 1781–3) or “absolute knowledge” (Phenomenology of Spirit, “(DD) Absolute Knowledge”).

According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in contradiction and negation. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of reality—consciousness, history, philosophy, art, nature, society—leads to further development until a rational unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up (Aufhebung) to a higher unity. This whole is mental because it is mind that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, logical, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational,

If some of that sounds like psychobabble to you, don’t worry, that puts you in the Popper camp… But as Marx was a “Left Hegelian” it ended up in Communism as a foundation stone…

Civil society

Hegel made the distinction between civil society and state in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right. In this work, civil society (Hegel used the term “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” though it is now referred to as Zivilgesellschaft in German to emphasize a more inclusive community) was a stage in the dialectical relationship that occurs between Hegel’s perceived opposites, the macro-community of the state and the micro-community of the family. Broadly speaking, the term was split, like Hegel’s followers, to the political left and right. On the left, it became the foundation for Karl Marx’s civil society as an economic base; to the right, it became a description for all non-state (and the state is the peak of the objective spirit) aspects of society, including culture, society and politics. This liberal distinction between political society and civil society was followed by Alexis de Tocqueville. In fact, Hegel’s distinctions as to what he meant by civil society are often unclear. For example, while it seems to be the case that he felt that a civil-society such as the German society in which he lived was an inevitable movement of the dialectic, he made way for the crushing of other types of “lesser” and not fully realized types of civil society, as these societies were not fully conscious or aware, as it were, as to the lack of progress in their societies. Thus, it was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of Hegel for a conqueror, such as Napoleon, to come along and destroy that which was not fully realized.

But that bit of exploration is for another day. Just note in passing that it was Hagel who started that whole “Civil Society” thing, and anyone using that terms is flagging that they are a Hegelian even if they don’t now it. (i.e. they got it via that path through Marx…)

Now here’s the bit from Popper that I liked most. (Really, I liked dozens and dozens of pages… but this is what makes this cut)

The second volume spends much time on Marx. For that alone it is worth the the read. Here, about 30 pages in:


Marx was a rationalist. With Socrates, and with Kant, he
believed in human reason as the basis of the unity of mankind.
But his doctrine that our opinions are determined by class interest
hastened the decline of this belief. Like Hegel’s doctrine that
our ideas are determined by national interests and traditions,
Marx’s doctrine tended to undermine the rationalist belief in
reason. Thus threatened both from the right and from the left,
a rationalist attitude to social and economic questions could
hardly resist when historicist prophecy and oracular irrationalism
made a frontal attack on it. This is why the conflict between
rationalism and irrationalism has become the most important
intellectual, and perhaps even moral, issue of our time.

[… Popper then does us the marvelous service of defining a bunch of these muddy terms, like “rationalism”. Which I am skipping here… -E.M.Smith]

Having thus become
a tremendous success on the continent, Hegelianism could hardly
fail to obtain support in Britain from those who, feeling that
such a powerful movement must after all have something to
offer, began to search for what Stirling called The Secret of Hegel.
They were attracted, of course, by Hegel’s ‘higher ‘ idealism
and by his claims to ‘ higher ‘ morality, and they were also
somewhat afraid of being branded as immoral by the chorus of
the disciples ; for even the more modest Hegelians claimed 6
of their doctrines that ‘ they are acquisitions which must . .
ever be reconquered in the face of assault from the powers
eternally hostile to spiritual and moral values ‘. Some really
brilliant men (I am thinking mainly of McTaggart) made great
efforts in constructive idealistic thought, well above the level of
Hegel ; but they did not get very far beyond providing targets
for equally brilliant critics. And one can say that outside the
continent of Europe, especially in the last twenty years, the
interest of philosophers in Hegel is slowly vanishing.

But if that is so, why worry any more about Hegel ? The
answer is that Hegel’s influence has remained a most powerful
force, in spite of the fact that scientists never took him seriously,
and that (apart from the ‘evolutionists ‘ 7 ) many philosophers are
about to lose interest in him. Hegels’ influence, and especially
that of his cant, is still very powerful in moral and social philo-
sophy and in the social and political sciences (with the sole
exception of economics) . Especially the philosophers of history,
of politics, and of education, are still to a very large extent
under its sway.
In politics, this is shown most drastically by
the fact that the Marxist extreme left wing, as well as the con-
servative centre, and the fascist extreme right, all base their
political philosophies on Hegel ; the left wing replaces the war
of nations which appears in Hegel’s historicist scheme by the
war of classes, the extreme right replaces it by the war of races ;
but both follow him more or less consciously.
(The conservative
centre is as a rule less conscious of its indebtedness to Hegel.)

In this we see the cries of “racist!!” today being rooted in the Right Hegelian view of a war of races. Thus we who are not of the far left get plastered with it, despite it being a lie, since we are being seen as “right” from them so we must be for a war of the races in a Hegelian world view… We also see the “class warfare” of the Left Hegelian now reflected in the “wealth inequality” ravings of the Democrats. As Marxists and Socialists (even if Socialist-lite) they are firmly stuck in their Hegelian world view roots.

Also note that the “Center” believes in a ‘war of nations’ as the Bad Thing. How best to eliminate that than to eliminate Nations?, eh?

IMHO it is here that Soros goes off the rails. Seeing Hegel as a set of wars of races, classes, nations; and reading Popper to say “Hegel is dim”, the best answer must be to eliminate races, classes and nations, or at least their distinctions.

How can this immense influence be explained ? My main
intention is not so much to explain this phenomenon, as to
combat it. But I may make a few explanatory suggestions.
For some reason, philosophers have kept around themselves,
even in our day, something of the atmosphere of the magician.
Philosophy is considered as a strange and abstruse kind of thing,
dealing with those mysteries with which religion deals, but not
in a way which can be ‘ revealed unto babes ‘ or to common
people ; it is considered to be too profound for that, and to
be the religion and theology of the intellectuals, of the learned
and wise. Hegelianism fits these views admirably ; it is exactly
what this kind of popular superstition supposes – philosophy to
be. It knows all about everything. It has a ready answer to
every question. . And indeed, who can be sure that the answer
is not true ?

But this is not the main reason for Hegel’s success. His
influence, and the need to combat it, can perhaps be better
understood if we briefly consider the general historical situation.

Medieval authoritarianism began to dissolve with the Renais-
sance. But on the continent, its political counterpart, medieval
feudalism, was not seriously threatened before the French Revo-
lution. (The Reformation had only strengthened it.) The fight
for the open society began again only with the ideas of 1789 ;
and the feudal monarchies soon experienced the seriousness of
this danger. When in 1815 the reactionary party began to
resume its power in Prussia, it found itself in dire need of an
ideology. Hegel was appointed to meet this demand, and he
did so by reviving the ideas of the first antagonists of the open
society, Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle.
Just as the French
Revolution rediscovered the perennial ideas of the Great Gener-
ation and of Christianity, freedom, equality, and the brother-
hood of all men, so Hegel rediscovered the Platonic ideas which
lie behind the perennial revolt against freedom and reason.

Then here is the “money quote” and just the kind of thing to bend the mind of a young Jew fresh from under Nazi oppression:

Hegelianism is the renaissance of tribalism. The historical sig-
nificance of Hegel may be seen in the fact that he represents
the ‘ missing link ‘, as it were, between Plato and the modern
form of totalitarianism.
Most of the modern totalitarians are
quite unaware that their ideas can be traced back to Plato.
But many know of their indebtedness to Hegel, and all of them
have been brought up in the close atmosphere of Hegelianism.
They have been taught to worship the state, history, and the

In order to give the reader an immediate glimpse of Hegel’s
Platonizing worship of the state, I shall quote a few passages,
even before I begin the analysis of his historicist philosophy.
These passages show that Hegel’s radical collectivism depends
as much on Plato as it depends on Frederick William III, king
of Prussia in the critical period during and after the French
Revolution. Their doctrine is that the state is everything, and
the individual nothing ; for it owes everything to the state, its
physical as well as its spiritual existence. This is the message
of Plato, of Frederick William’s Prussianism, and of Hegel.
‘ The Universal is to be found in the State ‘, Hegel writes 8 .
* The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. . . We
must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the
Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to compre-
hend Nature, it is infinitely harder to grasp the Essence of the
State. . . The State is the march of God through the world.

. . The State must be comprehended as an organism. . . To
the complete State belongs, essentially, consciousness and thought.
The State knows what it wills. . . The State is real ; and . .
true reality is necessary. What is real is eternally necessary. . .
The State . . exists for its own sake. . . The State is the
actually existing, realized moral life.’ This selection of utter-
ances may suffice to show Hegels’ Platonism and his insistence
upon the absolute moral authority of the state, which overrules
all personal morality, all conscience. It is, of course, a bom-
bastic and hysterical Platonism, but this only makes more obvious
the fact that it links Platonism with modern totalitarianism.

So having been subject to Frederrick William’s sponsorship of Hegel, then the Nazi use of it as justification for the Super State, then seeing the Marxist version of it in Communism, the only rational conclusion is that it is all Hegel’s fault and that The State in the form of Nation or Tribe is The Evil Thing. So destroy it.

By putting it under the control of wise men like him… completely missing that this is just another form of Totalitarian Dictatorship.

In any case, we are to become one big happy non-family with everyone divorced from any tribe, nation, gender, religion, etc. etc. Free Sprits all in a Kumbaya world… Just stamp out anyone who disagrees, and the world will be wonderful. Stamp out borders, mix cultures and peoples from everywhere, and all your worries will be gone.

Except maybe for those pesky folks who don’t want to be exterminated culturally and those other pesky folks who want to do the exterminating…

Open Society

For those wishing to see what others think Open Society means, here’s the wiki:


The open society is a concept originally suggested in 1932 by the Jewish French philosopher Henri Bergson, and developed during the Second World War by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

Popper saw the open society as standing on a historical continuum reaching from the organic, tribal, or closed society, through the open society marked by a critical attitude to tradition, up to the abstract or depersonalised society lacking all face-to-face interaction transactions.

In open societies, the government is expected to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible. Advocates claim that it is opposed to authoritarianism.

Popper is, however, considered to be an insider of Vienna thinkers, like Oskar Morgenstern and John von Neumann, who advocated and developed Game Theory, a theory of government lacking transparency. See f.e. Veblen, Thorsten: The Intellectual Pre-Eminence of Jews in Modern Europe.


Popper saw the classical Greeks as initiating the long slow transition from tribalism towards the open society, and as facing for the first time the strain imposed by the less personal group relations entailed thereby.

Whereas tribalistic and collectivist societies do not distinguish between natural laws and social customs, so that individuals are unlikely to challenge traditions they believe to have a sacred or magical basis, the beginnings of an open society are marked by a distinction between natural and man-made law, and an increase in personal responsibility and accountability for moral choices (not incompatible with religious belief).

Popper argued that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people have become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society, but at the same time recognised the continuing emotional pull of what he called “the lost group spirit of tribalism”, as manifested for example in the totalitarianisms of the 20th century.

While the period since Popper’s study has undoubtedly been marked by the spread of the open society, this may be attributed less to Popper’s advocacy and more to the role of the economic advances of late modernity. Growth-based industrial societies require literacy, anonymity and social mobility from their members — elements incompatible with much traditional-based behaviour but demanding the ever wider spread of the abstract social relations Georg Simmel saw as characterising the metropolitan mental stance.


Popper defined the open society as one “in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions” as opposed to a “magical or tribal or collectivist society.”

He considered that only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and leadership change without the need for bloodshed, revolution or coup d’état.

Modern advocates of the open society suggest that society would keep no secrets from itself in the public sense, as all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are claimed to be the foundation of an open society.

Now contrast that lofty goal with Soros. He of the desire to overthrow governments (for the good the people…) and shape markets and all to suit his view of what is right. Can you say Authoritarian In Sheep Skin? Don’t let the little people choose to have a Nation as that is Tribal, and BAD. Let mature Daddy Soros give you a nice Open Society where you just have to accept a few road side bombs on Friday every week and people who want to kill you being put in your home town by a nameless international process… Say no and you are [Homophobic | xenophobic | racist | bigot | The Devil Encarnate] …

Me? I like my “traditions”. I’m perfectly happy with an Open Society rising from it’s own power as my Nation develops, and as we pick and choose what bits of our Tradition we choose to keep. I don’t need a little Troll off in a mansion deciding what my world must be… or my Nation.

More importantly, I reject the idea of a bi-polar world. This whole right – left axis. IMHO, there is a clear Libertarian world view that does not need an Open Society with the destruction of Nations, nor does it need a Hegelian Totalitarian be they Hegel Right or Hegel Left. We can have a world of free nations, with their own history and traditions, in which individuals are free to pursue their lives as long as they don’t screw around with other’s rights. That, IMHO, is where Soros fails. He does not recognize MY right to a Nation of Peers. My right to protection from those other individuals who will NOT accept my right to self determination and free will. The world of non-Totalitarian “just enough laws” but not a muddy sewer of “any idea at all, murder your neighbor for not believing what you believe is just fine too, so is gang rape of those who don’t agree”…

We need a certain amount of shared culture, shared rules, shared laws, and shared customs to have a stable society. Start saying “anything goes” and you get anarchy in short order. It is the balance between absolute chaos of unlimited freedom against Totalitarian Straight Jacket that is the best place, IMHO. A world of no nations and no shared culture becomes unstable and implodes. The Old Roman Empire fell that way to the uniform Arab Muslims. I’d rather not repeat that error.

It is my opinion that Soros, scarred in his youth by the Hegelian Totalitarian Nation State as an outcast Tribe, has responded by trying to eliminate all national pride and all tribal values. That he goes many steps too far and doesn’t see the middle ground as he pushes western culture, values, traditions and nations toward destruction. I also think that Russia has seen this too (as, I suspect, have China and India and the Muslim World [ though they are willing to exploit it, so keep quiet and plant mosques everywhere]).

OK, that’s the overview….

I’m going to do a bit on Hagel in more depth at some point, and likely add some more on Popper and Open Society. The purpose of this bit was just to point at the roots of some otherwise puzzling words and actions in the world. Hopefully it helps with that.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Economics - Trading - and Money, History, Human Interest, News Related, Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Popper on Hegel to Soros to You

  1. Larry Ledwick says:

    Very interesting post EM. you have proposed the first rational explanation I have seen for why Soros and others want to destroy the concept of nation states. My normalcy bias always got in the way of understanding what would push someone to try to destroy a construct of civilization which has enabled growth and progress on the scale of the industrialized world. I kept looking for the “secret hook” how they were going to make money off it etc. when it probably was never about money but philosophy and something he internally has labeled as evil.

    Thanks — now back to finish the rest of your post.

  2. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thank you for going to the very roots of Nazi and Marxist movements.

    They both overlooked an important and powerful truth that the founders of this great nation described in the Declararion of Independence in 1776:

    FREEDOM is our natural state of being.


    We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are the rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Tyrants today use a falsehood developed by Drs. Carl von Weizsacker and Hans Bethe in 1935-1936, “nuclear binding energy,” to isolate the public from knowledge that neutron repulsion powers the Sun, the galaxies and causes the Universe to expand.

  3. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    The slope in the baseline across the top of Figure 2 shows the exact bias in the Bethe-Weizsacker calculations of nuclear binding energy that has isolated humanity from reality:


  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    Soros is mentioned below:


    The defendants in the class-action suit include Black Lives Matter; President Obama; Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton; the Rev. Al Sharpton; Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and billionaire activist George Soros.

  5. gallopingcamel says:

    Our founding fathers designed a system of government that distributed power far and wide. In the 18th century this was a highly successful approach for running a huge country.

    Today with much better communications our rulers are trying to gather as much power as possible into Washinton while pushing globalism at every opportunity. The losers in this process are the little people who now serve government rather than have government serve them as promised by Lincoln (Gettysburg Address).

  6. Will Janoschka says:

    Should this be filed under, “Do unto others, before they do unto you”?

  7. Serioso says:

    Mr.Smith’s piece was, in my not at all humble opinion, concise, well-argued, thoughtful, and fatally flawed. What he does not understand, and seems incapable of understanding, is the origin of Soros’ opinions and actions.

    What Soros has seen is that tens of millions of people have been killed over the past century by the same sort of tribalism that Mr. Smith applauds. Yes, Soros is trying to unite mankind under the banner of a worldwide community. What Soros understands, and what seems barely to penetrate the consciousness of the Chiefio, is that human beings are capable of enormous cruelty. Indeed, I think, human beings are inherently cruel except when (in rare cases: q.v. Quakers) they are taught otherwise. Soros wishes to control the inherent cruelty of tribalism by promoting democracy and limiting the power of extreme capitalism to organize what may well be called ‘hate groups’ to foment mass hatred and violence. This is not something the Chiefio seems prepared to understand. As far as I can understand him, he thinks Nazism was an economic system, a form of crony capitalism, as opposed to a cruel attempt to legitimize the theft of life and property. As I see it, the Chief has only the faintest understanding of human behavior, especially mass behavior.

    This theory of mine may also explain why the Chief is a Trump supporter. Phrases like “disarm Hillary’s guards” and “the second amendment people” seem to fly under the Chief’s radar. Anything Trump says, no matter how odious, is never mentioned. As far as I can tell, he’s swallowed the Kool-Aid, and has gone over to the dark side.

    The bottom line, for me, is that George Soros is a decent man – and a capitalist. He understands human nature – and capital markets. After the Chief’s remarks about overpaid football players and his defense of tribalism, I wonder if he understands either tribalism or capitalism. I hope, at the very least, that his analysis of capital markets has brought him riches.

  8. Oliver K. Manuel says:


    There is little doubt that Soros, Stalin and Hitler once believed that were “saving the world.”

    They all made the fatal mistake of trying to “play God themselves.”

  9. H.R. says:

    Odd… The Borg just popped into my mind after reading this article.

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    I see Serioso is still mired in the personal attack and insult Alinsky mode. I choose to ignore him for now and read things with content.

    I will note in passing his evident grasp and smooth exposition of the Soros Dogma. Evidently takes training well. But can’t see through his biases well at all. (Mom, Dad and spouse’s Dad faced Nazi munitions up close and personal, as did most of their families and friends. Attempting to tie me to support of the Nazi is sad.) “Unite Mankind” is most often followed by “under my yoke”, and Soros Dogma will end the same. I’ll take the free association of voluntary tribes, you know, like Canada, Ausralia, The USA, Russia, et.al. taking down Socialist Nazi Germany in W.W.II When that “unified mankind” swallowed Europe.

    It is called free will, and it is a good thing.

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    George Soros said “I am greater then God! I manipulate and destroy nations!”
    A sociopath with little or no regarded to the wreckage of lives he has caused…pg

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    Popper, Vol-1, Ch. 8. On engineering a better society, such as Soros is doing.

    I think he does a very good job of advocating for changes as one service at a time, by the will of the people, and not a grand utopian plan, ala Soros. Bolding mine.


    Before proceeding to criticize Utopian engineering in detail, I
    wish to outline another approach to social engineering, namely,
    that of piecemeal engineering. It is the approach which I think
    to be methodologically sound. The politician who adopts this
    method may or may not have a blueprint of society before his
    mind, he may or may not hope that mankind will one day
    realize an ideal state, and achieve happiness and perfection on
    earth. But he will be aware that perfection, if at all attainable,
    is far distant, and that every generation of men, and therefore
    also the living, have a claim ; perhaps not so much a claim to be
    made happy, for there are no institutional means of making a
    man happy, but a claim not to be made unhappy, where it can
    be avoided. They have a claim to be given all possible help, if
    they suffer. The piecemeal engineer will, accordingly, adopt
    the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest
    and most urgent evils of society, rather than searching for, and
    fighting for, its greatest ultimate good 2 . This difference is far
    from being merely verbal. In fact, it is most important. It is
    the difference between a reasonable method of improving the
    lot of man, and a method which, if really tried, may easily lead to
    an intolerable increase in human suffering.
    It is the difference
    between a method which can be applied at any moment, and a
    method whose advocacy may easily become a means of continually
    postponing action until a later date, when conditions are more
    favourable. And it is also the difference between the only
    method of improving matters which has so far been really success-
    ful, at any time, and in any place (Russia included, as will be
    seen) and a method which, wherever it has been tried, has led
    only to the use of violence in place of reason,
    and if not to its
    own abandonment, at any rate to that of its original blueprint.

    In favour of his method, the piecemeal engineer can claim that
    a systematic fight against suffering and injustice and war is more
    likely to be supported by the approval and agreement of a great
    number of people than the fight for the establishment of some
    The existence of social evils, that is to say, of social
    conditions under which many men were suffering, can be
    comparatively well established. Those who suffer can judge for
    themselves, and the others can hardly deny that they would not
    like to change places. It is infinitely more difficult to reason
    about an ideal society. Social life is so complicated that few
    men, or none at all, could judge a blueprint for social engineering
    on the grand scale ; whether it be practicable ; whether it
    would result in a real improvement ; what kind of suffering it
    may involve ; and what may be the means for its realization.

    As opposed to this, blueprints for piecemeal engineering are
    comparatively simple. They are blueprints for single institutions,
    for health and unemployed insurance, for instance, or arbitration
    courts, or anti-depression budgeting 3 or educational reform. If
    they go wrong, the damage is not very great, and a re-adjustment
    not very difficult.
    They are less risky, and for this very reason
    less controversial. But if it is easier to reach a reasonable agree-
    ment about existing evils and the means of combating them than
    it is about an ideal good and the means of its realization, then
    there is also more hope that by using the piecemeal method we
    may get over the very greatest practical difficulty of all reasonable
    political reform, namely, the use of reason, instead of passion
    and violence, in executing the programme. There will be a
    possibility of reaching a reasonable compromise and therefore of
    achieving the improvement by democratic methods.
    ( c Com-
    promise * is an ugly word, but it is important for us to learn its
    proper use. Institutions are inevitably the result of a compromise
    with circumstances, interests, etc., though as persons we should
    resist influences of this kind.)

    As opposed to that, the Utopian attempt to realize an ideal
    state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands
    a strong centralized rule of a few, and which therefore is likely
    to lead to a dictatorship 4 . This I consider a criticism of the
    Utopian approach, having shown, in the chapter on the Principle
    of Leadership, that an authoritarian rule is a most objectionable
    form of government.
    Some points not touched upon in that
    chapter furnish us with even more direct arguments against the
    Utopian approach. One of the difficulties faced by a benevolent
    dictator is to find whether the effects of his measures agree with
    his good intentions. The difficulty arises out of the fact that
    authoritarianism must discourage criticism ; accordingly, the
    benevolent dictator will not easily hear of complaints regarding
    the measures he has taken. But without some such check, he
    can hardly find whether his measures achieve the desired
    benevolent aim. The situation must become even worse for the
    Utopian engineer. The reconstruction of society is a big under-
    taking which must cause considerable inconvenience to many,

    and for a considerable span of time. Accordingly, the Utopian
    engineer will have to be deaf to many complaints ; in fact, it
    will be part of his business to suppress unreasonable objections.
    But with it, he must invariably suppress reasonable criticism also.
    Another difficulty of Utopian engineering is connected with the
    problem of the dictator’s successor. In chapter 7 I have
    mentioned certain aspects of this problem. Utopian engineering
    raises a difficulty analogous to but even more serious than that
    which faces the benevolent tyrant who tries to find an equally
    benevolent successor 5 . The very sweep of such a Utopian
    undertaking makes it improbable that it will realize its ends
    during the lifetime of one social engineer, or group of engineers.
    And if the successors do not pursue the same ideal, then all the
    sufferings of the people for the sake of the ideal may be in vain.

    It is perhaps useful to contrast this criticism of Platonic
    Idealism in politics with Marx’s criticism of what he called
    * Utopianism ‘. What is common to Marx’s criticism and mine
    is that both demand more realism. But there are many
    differences. In arguing against Utopianism, Marx condemns
    all social engineering. He denounces the hope in a rational
    planning of social institutions as altogether unrealistic, since
    society must grow according to the laws of history and not
    according to our rational plans. All we can do, he maintains,
    is to lessen the birthpangs of the historical processes. In other
    words, he opposes a radical historicism to all social engineering.
    But there is one element within Utopianism, characteristic, for
    instance, of Plato’s approach, which Marx does not oppose,
    although it is one of the elements which I have attacked as
    unrealistic. This is its sweep, its attempt to deal with society as
    a whole ; for he expects that history will bring us a revolution
    which will completely re-model the whole ‘ social system ‘.

    This sweep, this radicalism of the Platonic approach (and of
    the Marxian as well) is, I believe, connected with its aestheticism,
    i.e. with the desire to build a world which is not only a little
    better and more rational than ours, but which is free from all its
    ugliness : not a crazy quilt, an old garment badly patched, but
    an entirely new coat, a really beautiful new world. This
    aestheticism is a very understandable attitude ; in fact, I believe
    most of us suffer from it a little (some reasons why we do so may
    emerge from the next chapter). But this aesthetic enthusiasm
    becomes valuable only if it is bridled by reason, by a feeling of
    responsibility, and by a humanitarian urge to help. Otherwise
    it is a dangerous enthusiasm, liable to develop into a form of
    neurosis or hysteria.

    Nowhere do we find this aestheticism more strongly expressed
    than in Plato. Plato was an artist ; and like many of the best
    artists, he tried to visualize a model, the divine original of his
    work, and to copy it faithfully 9 . A good number of the quotations
    given in the last chapter illustrate this point. What Plato
    describes as dialectics is, in the main, the intellectual intuition of
    the world of pure beauty. His trained philosophers are men
    who * have seen the truth of what is beautiful and just, and
    good ‘ 10 , and can bring it down from heaven to earth. Politics,
    to Plato, is an art not in a metaphorical sense in which we may
    speak about the art of treating men, or the art of getting things
    done, but in a more literal sense of the word. It is an art of
    composition, like music, painting, or architecture. The Platonic
    politician composes cities, for beauty’s sake.

    But here I must protest. I do not believe that human lives
    may be made the means for satisfying an artist’s desire for self-
    expression. We must demand, rather, that every man should be
    given, if he wishes, the right to model his life himself, as far as
    this does not interfere too much with others. Much as I may
    sympathize with the aesthetic impulse, I suggest that the artist
    might seek expression in another material. Politics, we demand,
    must uphold equalitarian and individualistic principles
    ; dreams of
    beauty have to submit to the necessity of helping men in distress,
    and men who suffer injustice ; and to the necessity of con-
    structing institutions to serve such purposes “.


    Simply put, I assert that Popper reached roughly the same position I hold.

    In paraphrase:

    “Nice Utopian dream, Mr. Soros, but where is the individual liberty? The democratic hand on the tiller? The prevention of a slide of this Utopia into Tyranny?”

    Or more colloquially:

    Love all those great intentions… Paving a road to hell with them?

    That is what the great sweep of history has done with EVERY Utopian effort. Don’t forget that both the Nazi Empire and the Communist Empire were built on Utopian Ideation…

    I’ll take my rabble running in different directions, each working from their own vision of what is best for them, their tribe, and their nation, thanks.

  13. EM Interesting and a great effort. Could not cope with the piece in one go but have learned a bit.
    I see that Soros and those he persuades do not like democracy ie giving people a say. It seems to me that in most countries there has been a trend to centralisation and limitations to democracy. I like the Swiss system of citizen initiated referenda but there are organisations trying misuse the system with lies. Twice I have had (very polite) factual comments not published on http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng. It appears the editor is pro EU, supports AGW and the Greens proposals. Anyway keep up the good work.

  14. John Silver says:

    “If it ain’t local, it ain’t democracy”

    I said that.

  15. beththeserf says:

    Thx Chiefio, Popper’s ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’ in
    2 Volumes.on Plato, Hegel and Marx, is a wonderful critical
    analysis of totalitarian threats to open democratic society. Started
    my Serf Under_ground journal as a kind of joke with some of the
    denizens @ Judith Curry ‘Climate Etc, (hence the serf dialogue. )


    Karl Popper’s Open Society is my most important reading, one copy
    for me and one I lend out. telling arguments against (dis) Utopias and
    take home message that if the open society of civilization of modern
    democracies is to prevail, won at great cost, we must break the habit
    of uncritical deference to great men. It’s in the cult of the great leader,
    propounded by Plato in the republic, and influencing later thinkers,
    that Popper traces the evolution of modern totalitarian thinking.

    beth the serf.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    To give attribution to PGs quote.

    George Soros: ‘I Am A God, I Created Everything’

    George Soros claims he is a god and “the creator of everything,” however the billionaire globalist also warns he is a “self-centred” god who believes “normal rules do not apply” to him.

    “I fancied myself as some kind of god …” he wrote. “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.“

    When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that statement, Soros doubled down: “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.“

    Since I began to live it out. Those unfamiliar with Soros would probably dismiss that claim as nothing more the typical blathering of an irrelevant madman. But those who have followed his career and sociopolitical endeavors realize that while he may be mad, he is a mad billionaire, and billionaires tend not to be irrelevant….

    So we have people like Soros and the Clintons thinking KNOWING they are ABOVE THE LAW. That they can steal and murder and wreck entire countries; That they can completely wipe out Western Civilization and do as they wish because they have the ‘MORAL HIGH GROUND’

    And unfortunately we have way too many like Serioso, who can not see that as Dangerous to the entire human species.

    Serioso go read DEMOCIDE: Death By Government the tally of the millions and millions of people murdered thanks to those who are in agreement with Soros, the globalists like the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers, Pascal Lamy, Bushes, Clintons and a whole host of other oppressors of other humans.

    And YES the murders are directly caused by these globalists. link — Note that the Banksters, including American bankers were behind, and funded the Bolshevik Revolution.

  17. philjourdan says:

    It seems Soros is not much different than any of the “principled” tyrants of the past. He was influenced by Hegel and Popper, but is merely using what he learned to enrich himself. He gets rich out of the destruction of others. And he enjoys it. Unlike the other tyrants, he does not seek to build anything. Power and money are the ends and others have recognized it.

    It is not surprising the American left has not. They are merely stooges dancing to whomever has the money and says the right phrases.

  18. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thanks, Gail. I suspect that you are correct, because I, like Paul, was chief among sinners.

    Now I am convinced that humans are members of a group whose very survival depends on our ability to care for others and share information. The inability of modern society to freely share information now threatens humanity’s survival: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/who-i-write-for-updated-again/#comment-181147

  19. Jeff says:

    Discover the Networks has a lot on George Soros and other would-be gods. It seems that the libtard left and unthinking SJWs and snowflakes have become some kind of amplifier for his megalomanical input, ambitions, and goals. Here’s hoping it can be stopped…

  20. Thanks EM. Though I haven’t spent a lot of time finding out why, the obvious tendency to trying to homogenise the various nations within Europe has been bugging me a long time. Your article is thus somewhat of a satori moment in understanding the reasoning.

    Social change naturally takes a long time to happen, and it seems every time people try to hurry it up there are big screw-ups. O a smaller scale we’ve seen this happen when governments have tried to rebuild slum areas and move the inhabitants to new housing. The problem areas just get bigger and harder to deal with. Improvements have to be started from within such societies and have enough local people backing them.

    In the same way, a large influx of people from a different culture messes up the local planning. It takes time and investments to get the water supplies, sewage systems, schools, medical care, police etc. sorted out and such plans and investment are based on the historic birthrate and house occupancy. If the incoming people live two families or more to a house and have 7-10 children, then it won’t be long before the local infrastructure becomes inadequate and the original locals (who are probably still the main ones financing the infrastructure) won’t be getting what they paid for. Their taxes will almost certainly be raised, too.

    The “racist” or “xenophobic” response of the locals is thus understandable. They are losing out, and the money they’ve invested over generations isn’t paying off.

    Within a country, there’s been the opportunity for people in “poor” areas to move to the “rich” areas. London is paved with Gold, after all. Over the years it’s reached a balance-point and is planned for. There’s also been the opportunity to move the other way, though rich people buying up a cheap country cottage and visiting for occasional weekends is annoying the locals in Wales as much as the country within a couple of hours of Paris. That tends to make the young of the village need to go *somewhere else* since the housing gets more expensive and out of proportion to local wages. The villages die and become under-occupied, so the local shops go out of business and the village life becomes seasonal.

    Within the EU, the addition of the Eastern Europe bloc, where wages and prices are low, and the immediate ability of those people to go elsewhere in the EU to find work, upset the balance. OK if the countries have around the same wages and are otherwise pretty comparable, but where (as in for example Hungary) the local wages are about 20% of those in the UK there are pretty big consequences. My job got exported to Hungary because the wages were so low there, and I’m sure that happened to a lot of other companies too. Companies will go where the profits are greater. The Hungarians are after all good workers – maybe not immediately to a high quality but after a few years of improvements and fixing failures they’d do just as good a job. It takes time to build up quality.

    The homogenised and nation-free world envisioned would necessarily be of a lower standard of living. If at the same time the “elitist” schools are banned, then the brightest few percent (who make the majority of the advances anyway) won’t get enough stretching when they are young and maybe also won’t see any advantage in working hard if the gains are the same whether you work well or not. Some people can be driven by ideals alone, but for most people financial gain (or the equivalent) is a good way of getting the best from them.

    The homogenised world looks like it will be filled with underachievers, and will also lack a lot of local variations. This seems to be common to most ideas of Utopia, anyway, even to the various descriptions of Heaven. Nothing to work towards, no gains possible, so why do anything at all?

    One other problem is that if you don’t fit in where you are, at the moment you can go try a different place with a different culture. Culture varies from one county to another, so you don’t even have to move countries to get a different life.

    The big advantage of having a lot of diversity (and separate nations/cultures) is that it is more resilient. If some disaster happens, some will survive better than others, some may get wiped out. With societies (as with farming) a monoculture risks losing everything if the unexpected happens. All the eggs in one basket, etc..

  21. E.M.Smith says:


    Yes, that “Why do they want to kill themselves” (culturally) nagged at me for several years too.

    While I like doing these kinds of investigations ( that I usually call “data dives” as I’m diving into some dataset or how it was created… usually not history of philosophy ;-) they take time. This one was about a week, on and off. That’s the actual time spent digging.

    Now that can only happen after a set of precursor events.

    First, you have to be aware there is some issue to address. That slow dawning of awareness that “something is wrong” in the EU and the cultural suicide of European Nations.

    Next there must be some stimulant to show that there’s a deeper cause. (Well, not really “must”, but more “usually”. Sometimes I just suspect, so toss out a trawl to see what might be there…). For this, it was the way Soros kept showing up as supporting things that tended to push that way.

    Those two took a few years to percolate a decent brew…

    Then it starts to pick up speed. A few months of seeing “Soros and NGOs” and then “NGOs and AGW” and “NGOs and EU” and “Russia bans NGOs” and “India bans NGOs”… and it feels like a slap in the face. “Why am I not digging here?”…

    Eventually that itch / slap can’t be ignored for other things, and you start to “Dig Here!”… and a week or so later the pieces fit. Soros the puppet master using NGOs to pull Politician and Useful Idiot strings to implement his “vision” of a Utopia. (Then he gave the biggest clue, the name of his NGOs) Driven by a warped read of Popper (or a decent read, rejected, for his own “better” understanding…) critiquing The Bad Thing of his youth when Hegelian Right Nazis invaded Hungary and started to kill His Tribe. Since the Nazi are gone, he can only lash out at all Nations and all Tribes… It fits, and time to write… (then a day or two of assembling links and editing down the scope…)

    Now I could be quite wrong on Soros psyche, but I don’t think so. Doing psychoanalysis at a distance for a recluse isn’t easy ;-) But I’ve got a pretty good “people reader”. ( I once pegged a thief from a single interview of the janitorial staff, just from facial expressions and posture and my ‘read’ of his character… in about 5 minutes…) Season that ‘read’ of what I’ve seen of him in interviews with the facts around him, I’m pretty sure I know his character and drivers. Even the ones he doesn’t admit to himself. I feel sorry for him, damaged so much so young.


    I’d known that the Nazi and Marxist beliefs stemmed from the same Socialist root, but had not realized there was a point in (philosophical) time where you could peg the split and a single person where they were joined. Hegel was the join with his justification of the Dominance Of State; then it splits into Right Hegel and Left Hegel and you get National Socialists vs International Socialists (Communists).

    That was a bit of an eye opener.

    Now I’ve got to read more of Hegel (even though I agree with Popper that he’s trash) so that I better understand the thinking of his followers (direct in history and indirect today). But I think I’ll finish Popper first. Popper has a very tidy mind ;-)

    @John F. Hultquist:

    I hope we see much more of that. Now that we KNOW where the crap is coming from, it is time to start closing the loop on responsibility.

    Russia has started it with an arrest warrant for Soros. India has a “me too” with some NGO bans. Now a Dallas Cop (Go Texas!!!) has stood up with s lawsuit. May a thousand legal cuts be delivered… Soros and his organizations have caused great damage in the world (“revolutions”, fall of governments, riots, deaths) it is time for those deep pockets to pay for their damages.


    Thus has it always been…

    The Royals of the past wanted Central Authority.
    The Emperors of the past wanted Central Authority.
    The UN wants Central Authority.
    etc. etc.

    Fleeing that abusive Central Authority, the Founders of the USA had long fights over how much Central Authority to have. Jefferson wanted very little. Hamilton wanted a lot. Jefferson won, for a while… Then the Hamiltonians slowly eroded that win. Finally, the Civil War gave them a clear victory, and when The Progressive Era came along, they cemented it as a solid Central Authority System. It has taken a generation for that change to become culturally the norm in the population, though, so only now can Obama just act as Emperor Obama via fiat. We either reverse that, or as a Distributed Authority Nation, we die (much as the Roman Republic died when their Senate was deballed and their president decided to be Emperor…).

    And yes, Central Authority has a huge information processing problem. (I’ve contemplated an article on it, but priorities…) Computers have made Central Authority more “doable” not not any more able…

    @Will J.:

    Or maybe “They are doing it to you before you could do it to them!”…



    I’ll come back to your bit later, after a morning beverage…


    Not surprising. The metaphor of The Borg is a strict Central Authority over drones, vs the Federation as a voluntary association of “Tribes”, each different and diverse.

    ANY strict Central Authority must abolish diversity and “Tribes” in service of the One True Center. ALL must be drones to the Central Authority. (There will be the minimum of delegated independent choice necessary to keep the drones from revolting… so you see a constant push/pull of Central Authority vs revolution. Sometimes Central Authority gets it wrong, and a real revolution breaks out. Sometimes the Little People win a small victory and get an extra serving of cheese on alternate Wednesdays…)

    That same theme repeats in many iconic movies. Star Wars for example.


    I’m pretty sure he is sociopathic (in that he doesn’t really feel what others feel, no empathy), but I don’t know if he has that genetic trait, or if it was a result of the severe trauma of growing up in a Nazi dominated Hungary with His Tribe being persecuted and him needing to “not care” or he would be joining them…

    Basically, I can’t tell if it is innate or learned.

    Like many (most?) megalomaniacs, he thinks he is doing well. (Often seen in things like Papal blessings of Crusades or Imams sending millions to die in jihad…)


    Tell me about it… I’ve had to take the source material in a dozen chunks over a few elapsed weeks… Even writing this took a couple of sessions over a few days… and I had background in it by then.

    So “no worries”. Nibble at a time at first…

    There is ALWAYS a drift to Central Authority. The Central Authoritarians want it that way, and the population is usually distracted with things like growing food, raising kids, working… and don’t see a reason to complain when someone says “Hey, I’ll give you free healthcare!”… It inevitably ends in Tyranny and then Revolution… I’d like to find a way to short circuit that cycle.

    We have the referendum system in California, too. Yeah, some crap gets foisted on the people by stealth and deception (especially the referendum bills originating in the legislature…) but on average, I think it is better than not.

    It lets the people put a crowbar in the works when things get too far out of hand. For example, our “Proposition 13”. Inflation was driving land and housing prices nuts, assessors were assessing like crazy to get buckets of money to The State and Local governments. Folks were being driven out of their homes by taxes. Prop. 13 ended that. Flat out lid with “growth” of tax paid limited to less than inflation. Every few years the legislature and / or Useful Idiots try to repeal it via referendum. Every few years the people say “Nah… back in your cave.”

    @John Silver:

    Ohhhh! Mikey Likey!!!

    (and I said that!)

    @Beth The Serf:

    Thanks for visiting!

    I read your stuff from time to time (and like it!) I really need to visit more often… but then I’d have less time for postings… but I’d have better things to post about… but… Ah, the conundrum of a 24 hour day and a 56 hour ToDo ToDay list…

    It is an honor to have you here.

    Now if only I’d known about your love of Popper’s work a year or two ago. Might have saved me a few weeks of wandering in the woods.


    Yup, that’s pretty much it. I’d seen those quotes in my R&D for this article, but something had to hit the cutting room floor. So I focused more on the historical sweep from Hegel than on Soros The Person… On my perpetually growing ToDo list is a “Data Dive” into Soros’ actual writings and a posting one what he has of merit and what is foolilsh. (Most everyone has some of each. Even Marx and Hitler had some useful bits among the trash… For example, the Communist Manifesto is a great checklist for what NOT to let your government do.)


    I think it is a bit deeper than that. Soros has a good understanding of the psychology of markets. He uses that to get rich. (Many others have had the same understanding of boom / bust cycles and used it to get rich. Buffet, for example, uses the Intelligent Investor method of Ben Graham to buy more during a bust and sell more during a boom).

    Yet his fundamental character is that he feels guilty about it. And about surviving the holocaust. And likely a lot more. So he wants to “give back”… But being a bit megalomaniac, he wants to give back big… by topping governments and “fundamentally changing society” via the destruction of Tribe and Nationality.

    And what’s so wrong about making a little money by “Doing Well by Doing Good?”, eh? Just like the Clintons are doing it. (looks like they learned from the master…) So hey, you just know that those nasty Russians and their Nationalism need to take a dive, so a nice little Color Revolution would be just the ticket… might as well short the Ruble and gain a little Ka-Ching! along the way… After all, it’s for a good cause…

    (Russia has an arrest warrant for Soros for just that currency manipulation stuff. Putin has caught clue… and before I did.)


    Um, I don’t see the ability to freely share information being limited. It has grown greatly.

    What I see, though, is a vastly increased pile of “distractors” to sift through, often from “official” sources (see the NASA / GISS data crap for example).

    Better source filtering can fix that… but that takes a population who knows to do it, and has the ability to do it.


    That “amplifier” is by design. Soros sets up the NGOs and funds them with the direction to build such amplifiers of Useful Idiots. (Just like companies put out Missionary Advertising and runs Public Outreach programs to build followers… as do movie stars and more).

    What’s different this time, IMHO, is that the Soros gang has been assigned to parasitize and coopt every other organization they can. Movie Stars (and their followers), other NGOs (see the NSF and their directed grant giving) and even things like the IRS and EPA via Obama as indirect tool.


    Glad I could help.

    Pre-Soros, immigration was of people who wanted to “become the destination”. People came to the USA (or the UK or Germany) to become Americans, or British, or German.

    The difference now is that post-Soros, the goal is NOT assimilation into the nation, but destruction of the national identity.

    This is done via slanderous attacks with the usual litany of “racist, homophobe, xenophobe,”… etc etc. I suspect also the deliberate selection of preferred immigrant groups who are reluctant / resistant to assimilation, such as Muslims. The deliberate mixing of antagonistic belief structures.

    The rest of your comment is quite well done. Anyone who hasn’t read it, read it carefully.

    Yes, a ‘flattened’ world is one with most people near the bottom quartile and most things painted cultural gray. Unlike the USA historical norm of “upward mobility for all”, the Soros-Normal is “downward mobility for all but the chosen few” until everyone but them is ‘average near the bottom’ (but the very worst off raised a tiny bit.

    This is doomed to fail for some very simple economic reasons (that I don’t have space for here). The short form is that when folks are poor, they consume more than they save and invest. The upwardly mobile middle class results in more net investment and faster growth. The downwardly mobile middle class result in economic stagnation and eventual collapse. (Sound familiar? USA and EU as historically wealthy now in stagnation / slow fall, Venezuela in free-fall…)

    And a very firm YES! about diversity.

    Frankly, I want some folks not willing to get vaccinations. When you have universal (say annual flu) vaccination, you are one industrial accident away from every single person dead.

    There have been vaccine “oppsies” before. We will have them again. As providers (drug companies) have consolidated and vaccination made more universal, the scope of the future Aw Shit will be ever greater.

    (And, for anyone about to think I’m a nut job anti-vaccine: I’m in favor of vaccination. My kids were given the MMR along with all the rest of the usual vaccinations. I’ve had my shots too. I’m just aware of the real risk in them… Reality Awareness is not paranoia. Nor is it a political agenda. And no, I’ve not “forgotten” nor am I ignorant of the issue of ‘herd immunity’. I just think catastrophic democide is a risk not worth taking to avoid sniffles and a bit of fever… BTW, I had the ~1956 killer flue so I know what it is…)

    Nature has been very wise in using rampant diversity to assure life survives. Something like 90+% of all species ever to exist have gone extinct. Life goes on by constant change and diversity. The same is true of cultures, languages, and governments. It is only by diversity, independence, individual choice, distributed decisions, LOCAL CONTROL; that human civilization continues. As soon as we are all uniform and under One Central Authority, the destruction of most of humanity will be ‘on the cards’. I have no idea what will be the causal agent, but can guarantee that a uniform population does not long escape a lethal pandemic, be it medical, social, or governmental…

  22. cdquarles says:

    Spot on, Mr. Smith. You need to go to Washington ;p.

    God is Existence or Being. We are not God and can never be God. Soros sounds like the self-deceived Lucifer. He appears to be just as destructive. What do parents want from their children? Recognition from the child that they exist because their parents exist. So, I must acknowledge God IS and that is rational. The next thing a parent want from their child is acknowledging that they have fallen short of a standard, which is external to them and required for their being; when they have done so. Thus, I confess my sins when I have committed them. Finally, after reaching this point, a parent wants reconciliation that comes from honest confession and renunciation of sinful acts.

    So what does that mean for philosophy? To me, it means that Plato was fundamentally incorrect and when that ball was picked up and carried by fallen created beings, I must reject Plato and his progeny. I thus accept Christianity (what other religion has its proponents openly state that if the premises upon which its faith and doctrine are built are false, then the faith is vain or futile).

  23. tom0mason says:

    From earliest time philosophers and their philosophy rise to prominence riding on some success that is truly only of a time, and is not universal. The problem for all philosophies is that people, cultures, and societies change. Sometimes these changes are managed, sometimes not and either way the consequences are social/economic/cultural change, often upheaval.
    No matter what the great philosophers have said theirs was the view of yesterday, with some of them attempting to paint a better tomorrow. However as each tomorrow has passed by, these philosophies require better interpretations to make them blend into modern cultural and political hues. It is not that they can be wrong, many have universal and eternal truths in them but (IMO) none are wholly correct.

    Soros may think that tribalism and nationalism is the problem and all he has to do is eliminate them and the bulk of human problems are gone — he’s wrong. A bunch of people living together with shared culture, history, families and family experiences, etc., will tend to unite for their common good. This is how most people are — tribal at heart!

    This tribalism especially appears when large blocks of people from one place, or one religion, or one culture is relocated elsewhere. They do not necessarily acculturate to their new country well. Often they tend to want to associate with peoples of their own type, to make enclaves, a separate grouping from the host country. This will often cause some friction with the locals of the host nation. Sometimes this only happens over a short term, sometimes not. Usual the more similar the cultures are the shorter the acculturation period.

    In particular I see this with Europe. Here there are many enclaves of different nationalities, many can live peaceably within the crowded confines of the Europe, some struggle with the size of change they have to make to fit in, and some never want to fit in.

    All in all what Soros and his elitist believers are advocating (IMO) is the ghettoization of Europe. And as Europe is allowing migrants from conflict areas in, allowing economic migrants in, all virtually unfiltered. This is moving external conflicts into Europe, with all the additional internal friction and conflict that will cause. Many Europeans are now feeling overwhelmed by these incomers laying claim to social welfare of food and housing, health services, and jobs — the very welfare items already overstretched.

    Brexit has them (Soros et al) worried though because the British have shown that they wish to keep what little of their culture remains. Others within Europe look on in envy. The British people wish to be in control of when and who they allow entry into the country — on Britain’s terms, not Europe’s terms.
    The rest of EU elitists may shout that the British are acting like a bunch of xenophobes — so be it, IMO they are acting for the best reason, for the good of the British nation and its people.

  24. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    One possible danger now is that Soros or some other madman will use atomic bombs in North Korea (actually Japan’s old atomic bombs from WWII) to initiate a false flag nuclear war to reduce world population to the Utopian value.

  25. E.M.Smith says:

    Per Serioso:

    Mr.Smith’s piece was, in my not at all humble opinion, concise, well-argued, thoughtful,

    Thanks! Nice to know you picked up on that.

    and fatally flawed. What he does not understand, and seems incapable of understanding, is the origin of Soros’ opinions and actions.

    Um, no. The entire piece was devoted to teasing out the “origin of Soros’ opinions”. I presume you didn’t notice. ( I note in passing the 1st “insult to the person” or “gratuitous Alinsky-ing” in “incapable…”. As has been evidenced many times before, it is not possible for Serioso to have a polite conversation for more than one comment, and that usually only after chastisement for being insulting…)

    “What Soros has seen is that tens of millions of people have been killed over the past century by the same sort of tribalism that Mr. Smith applauds. ”

    Well, first off, that is a motivation, not an origin. Yes, quite clearly that is his motivation, but the origin is in that small scared boy in Nazi Hungary pretending not to be a Jew so as to survive. Then further fertilized during his Philosophy education and reading Popper. Those are the origin of the personality and its manifestations.

    BTW, I didn’t see me “applauding” anywhere. Perhaps you mistook “approval” for “applause”? I approve of people’s right to their own Tribe and the necessary Tribalism that comes with it. I, personally, am member of many “Tribes”. I’m a U.C. Graduate, so we have our Tribal annual picknick and I get all sorts of Tribal Perks (not the least of which is a certificate of membership via my Degree and more money in recognition.) I’m also member of the “Hacker” Tribe – though only just… I’ve not done any really cool hacks since college… I’m a member of the Teamsters Tribe (I never took a ‘withdrawal’ after my peach cannery days… so technically I’m still one) and of the Computer Professionals Tribe (via some certs) and of the Licensed College Instructor Tribe via my State issued membership card, er, “Teachers Certificate”. I’m also by default a member of the English Speaking Tribe and by choice a member of the Spanish Speaking and French Speaking Tribes. (Honorary Mention to my Mexican Hispanic Tribe membership, both by Federal Law and by having grown up 1/2 in a Hispanic home…) The list goes on for many pages…

    Yet strangely, not one of Tribes has been all that busy killing off millions… Perhaps, now I know this will be a stretch for you, but just perhaps, “tribalism” isn’t the root cause. Perhaps, just think if for a moment, it won’t hurt, but perhaps it is something else, like, oh, hatred of a person who doesn’t share your religion or will not convert as they wish to exercise their free will and some folks just don’t like free will in others… (Don’t let it distract you that this would implicate Mr. Soros as having the same defect…)

    “Yes, Soros is trying to unite mankind under the banner of a worldwide community. ”

    So let him join the hallowed historical portrait gallery along with the others seeking to “unite mankind” in a “worldwide community”:

    Ramses (several – the the limits they could reach) and their relatives.
    Alexander The Great
    Cyrus The Great
    Xerxies and more Persians down to
    The Shaw Pahlavi and his replacement
    Ayatolla Komeine
    Several Cesars and such, including Nero and eventually
    Constantine (and all his subsequent…)
    Emperor Chin (for whom China is named) and the
    Hirohito (and his long line of Rising Sun Emperors)
    Oh, and can’t forget the Europeans…
    Charles The Great
    All the Kings of England vs Kings of France vs Kings of Spain vs…
    Napoleon a bit more recently
    Stalin (marginally European) and Marx
    Hitler and his buddy Mussolini though they agreed to share… for a while…
    and the Arabs:
    Suleiman The Great
    Oh, and the long list of Ottoman Turk Empire Sultans from Ertegrul Bey to Mehmed Celebi

    I’ll skip over the Emperors of The Americas since most of them were killed off long before Europeans got there, and despite them being largely the same ethnicity and language group.

    Starting to see the problem? It is just that desire to unite mankind that is THE biggest risk. Not my membership in the Californians Tribe or the Gun Owners Tribe or even the Motorcycle Riders Tribe (nice jackets, though… but I never was that hard core…) nor even my membership in the American Citizens Tribe (nationalism). We got sucked into 2 world wars largely against our will, due to people desiring to “unite mankind” under their vision of utopia.

    Next we get another gratuitous insult – call it Alinsky-ing #2

    “What Soros understands, and what seems barely to penetrate the consciousness of the Chiefio, is that human beings are capable of enormous cruelty. ”

    So put forth a false premise, insult with it, then proceed to use it to “prove” your argument. Yup, well trained in propaganda techniques and Alinsky, from the looks of it. Insult, slander, invite defensiveness with “Have you stopped beating your wife?” accusation… Sorry, not interested.

    Though you might notice that MY motivation is exactly that “capable of enormous cruelty” understanding, mostly from people wanting to “unite the world”… Like, oh, all those cops shot and killed by Blacks Lives Matter protestors DIRECTLY funded and designed by Soros. Can you say “Acceptable collateral damage” like Dear Leader Soros? I knew you could…

    “Indeed, I think, human beings are inherently cruel except when (in rare cases: q.v. Quakers) they are taught otherwise. ”

    Never raised many animals then, I see. A dog can end up cruel, a wonderful companion, or a whimpering wreck. It all depends on how they are treated when young. Me? I had to learn to be “cruel” (or really violent at all). My fundamental nature is, roughly, Shmoo. Only repeated contact with people who wanted to beat me up (from my own “tribe” BTW) lead me to finally take karate classes and learn self defense. Now some folks are born prone to violence. For them, some strong conditioning can damp it out. A Dad with a Belt usually suffices. Raised with a “don’t touch my little darling” single mom, they often become most violent. (one such in my home town got planted in the local cemetery at about 18… so this isn’t a hypothetical to me). I’ve raised hundreds of animals, a few kids, and helped many more. The spouse, BTW, does Special Ed usually one on one for a living, and we’ve talked… Some kids are inherently violent (often those with a sociopathic gene set – yes, it has been identified) and some are inherently passive. So, sorry, your gross generalization is 100% wrong.

    “Soros wishes to control”

    You can say that again. Like all semi-paranoid whimpering beaten as a kid given great power late Dictators In The Making…

    “Soros wishes to control the inherent cruelty of tribalism by promoting democracy and limiting the power of extreme capitalism to organize what may well be called ‘hate groups’ to foment mass hatred and violence. ”

    Ah, yes, that favorite technique of propagandists everywhere. Put something in that sounds maybe OK, then slowly tack on ever worse things so the person accepts #1, and 2, 3, 4, 5 get swallowed like poison wrapped in chocolate… So lets break it down, shall we?

    Having used the premise from the prior paragraph that everyone is inherently cruel, despite that being demonstrably false, that is then linked to “tribalism”, as though all tribes are cruel. That’s The Big Lie. The Tribe of Amish (of which my granny was a member) is not cruel, nor even very grumpy most of the time. Need a barn? The whole community builds you one… About as bad as it gets is that if you reject the community, it shuns you. Separation for peace. But I digress…

    Next “promoting democracy” is somehow asserted to be just a wonderful cure for cruelty (that was assumed to exist without proof) and despite being one of THE most horrible forms of government. It has a terrible minority rights record ( “2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch” is the metaphor…) and is rarely stable past 50 years (unless strongly bridled by a Representative / Republic cage) and we won’t even start on the corruption issues… (Hey Hillary, hows that Democracy working out for you? $Millions you say?)

    Then the final coup… “limiting extreme capitalism”. Now I happen to have a degree in Capitalism. Yeah, formally it is Economics, and we did study Marxism for a couple of weeks, but most of it would be correctly described as “Capitalism – the good, the bad, and the ugly”. Never, NOT ONCE, was “extreme capitalism” used as a phrase. So I have to class that as “semantically null for political emotional effect”. There is NO “extreme capitalism”. There are free markets (usually named by their French name), there are regulated markets (often called ‘the mixed economy”), and there is the bastardized capitalism called “Third Way” or “Lange Type Socialism”

    Now presuming you really meant Laissez Faire capitalism: Perhaps you could be so good as to show me just where in the world it exists? I haven’t seen any in my lifetime. EVERYWHERE is either a “mixed economy” with loads of regulation, a “3rd Way” or full on Socialism, and the occasional dribs and drabs of actual Communism.

    Now the next bit is just precious. Having used a made up thing (“excess capitalism”) to hate, and based on a justification from a assumed cruelty that isn’t in everyone, these two fantasies are tied as causal to organizing ‘hate groups’ and fomenting violence and hatred. What a crock.

    Apple Computer doesn’t “organize hate groups and foment violence”.
    General Electric doesn’t.
    Burger King doesn’t.
    Intel doesn’t
    Boeing doesn’t
    My local Grocer doesn’t.

    Frankly, any capitalist enterprise that wastes time and money on that is missing out on some money making or cost cutting and will end up being driven out of the market by… capitalist pressures.

    But who DOES “foment violence” and “foment hate”? Look no further than Governments, and Black Lives Mattes (how many dead now?), and the Color Revolutions instigated by Soros (among others).

    Just because you created a PC Hate Group doesn’t mean it isn’t a Hate Group, and BLM is flat out a Hate Group encouraging the murder of police. (And no, I’m not racist nor do I have any issues with blacks. My favorite Riding Buddy was a black guy. He gave me his all black Kilimanjaro riding suit – about $700 – when he left the country for work. He was staying at my house at the time and I got him to a Space-A flight in time… I really miss our years working together and going out for drinks…. he almost made me feel cool ;-)

    “This is not something the Chiefio seems prepared to understand. ”

    Alisky-ing #3…

    “As far as I can understand him, he thinks Nazism was an economic system, a form of crony capitalism, as opposed to a cruel attempt to legitimize the theft of life and property.”

    Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. My wife can help…

    For the record: Nazism consists of several parts. The core of it is a Socialism on the economic front (read their early literature… and note they grew out of a Marx base of economics). They then adopted some of the “3rd Way” economics of the (successful, BTW) Socialist variation from the Fascists. (Facisti being a ‘bundle” a reference to the Trade Unions that figure prominently in Socialism and the notion that a bundle of sticks can’t be broken when a single stick can.) Mussolini started his career translating Socialist Marxist documents for his parents, and eventually developed his own ‘3rd way’ brand. He coined that term, BTW, so I get a chuckle each time Bill or Hillary Clinton use it. Bill is on tape saying his is a “3rd way” economics ;-)

    To that base, you add Nationalism. Stalin, being a more pure Marxist, wanted one single International Socialism “unifying mankind” under him… so branded Hitler “to the right” of Communism. That’s about as far right as it gets… half step from Stalin… Now, prior to Hitler, this National 3rd Way Socialism worked rather well in Italy. Trains ran on time. The place was fairly peaceful (modulo the occasional police beating… socialists are like that…) Mussolini was even invited to Hollywood for a cameo on a B&W movie and widely feted by the actors and American Progressives of the day. He then got hooked up with Hitler and things went down hill from there. The Jews, the prior had been valued members of Italian companies and commissioned officers in the military, started getting pushed out as Hitler didn’t like it… This was the time when Facist turned from “Good guy” to “Bad Guy Jack Boot” in the minds of the Americans… (Reading period literature can be fun ;-)

    That, too, points up the other part of Nazism that made it particularly horrid. It was rampantly, and horribly and frankly, stupidly, racist. Aside from the question of what the heck IS a “German Race” (that they spent years trying to define) there’s the fact that every population is a Bell Curve. There will be incompetent stupid Germans and there will be Genius Gypsies. (They, too, went to the gas chamber). Had it not been for that particular stupidity of Hitler and friends, the Jews of Italy would have remained, Fascism would be known more widely as “that successful 3rd way socialism”, and had Germany kept their Jews, they would have had the first nuke and we’d all be speaking German now. (It was the flood of European Jewish Physicists who made the bomb for the USA…)

    So I see Nazism as 3 things, in roughly equal measure. A fundamentally “3rd Way Socialist” economic system, a Nationalist political organization, and a festering racism that destroyed them (along with several million innocents) all under the control of a raving mad man (especially as the meth rage hit) desiring to “unify mankind”…

    “As I see it, the Chief has only the faintest understanding of human behavior, especially mass behavior.”

    Alinsky-ing #4, is it now? And patently wrong. I won’t bore you with the list of Sociology, History, Psych et. al. classes and readings I have… just note I’ve got 12 units of Medical School Psych on my transcript… it’s an interesting, and long, story, but not for here…

    “This theory of mine may also explain why the Chief is a Trump supporter. ”

    Now we get a tie of me to Trump. Should that be Alinsky-ing #5 or not will depend on your POV.

    But I can assure you your theory has nothing to do with my support for Trump. First off, you theory is horridly broken and flat out wrong. Secondly, Trump is far far from my ideal candidate. He’s more of a “better than that other trash” candidate. From my POV, about the only really great things he has going are that he can likely prune the Federal Government back to a balanced “Mixed Economy” model of about the 1970s, can purge the Soros Driven Obama Delivered attempted subornation of the US Government and Constitution (like, oh, rescinding executive orders that are unconstitutional…) and appoint decent judges who will actually read and understand the Constitution and know there role is not to re-write it… That, it turns out, is more than enough. As pointed out in a posting some long time back, I’m fine with Mexicans (no real surprise as I grew up 1/2 Mexican culturally) and suggested just merging the USA and Mexico into one country…
    FWIW, I’d also just add Canada too… Then all those frozen Canadians huddled just over the border in December could run down to Florida (or Cozumel…) any time they wanted… We all get along fine, despite our different “Tribes”, so why not? Add a bit of clean judicial system to Mexico and it would fix most of their crime problems too. As for the rest of Trumps policies: I’m not even sure what they all are. I’ve listened to a couple of speeches but didn’t really care, and I’ve not read his web pages on them. He’s hit the big lumps, and the alternative is evil, so “done deal”. (Though I do wish he’d picked Bernie as his running mate ;-) That would have guaranteed a win for “my side” ;-)

    “Phrases like “disarm Hillary’s guards” and “the second amendment people” seem to fly under the Chief’s radar.”

    Hardly, though you seem to not understand them. Hillary and Obama (and Soros) would like to end my 2nd amendment rights (and have done a fairly complete job already… I can technically own a gun, but not carry it nor even use it, really, without all sorts of licenses and such.) What Trump has done is simply point out the hypocrisy of Hillary and her 100% safe guarded by armed pros all the time wanting to dis-arm me in the wild and woolly poor side of town. IF she really wants guns gone so bad, she can start with her own.

    Now the loony-side-of-left likes to warp that into some kind of assertion of “go shoot her” threat by him, but that’s just crazy talk for effect. Kind of like what you did.

    Me? I see it, hear it, and laugh at the patent lie of the distorting of it.

    “Anything Trump says, no matter how odious, is never mentioned.”

    Largely because the “odious” is entirely in the mind of the beholder for most of it, and for the rest, it really doesn’t interest me much. Then again, I don’t watch WWF, oh pardon, I forgot that that English animal group sued and AGAINST THE RULES that say trademarks are by market sector, got it for exclusive use, so now it is WWE… But yes, Trump is a master at WWE like stage management for attention. Fun to watch. Better with beer… Just don’t take it too seriously… or pretty soon you will be betting on Lucha Underground…

    “As far as I can tell, he’s swallowed the Kool-Aid, and has gone over to the dark side.”

    Alinsky-ing #6 is it? I’m losing track…

    Kool-Aid? Never touch the stuff… Haven’t since about 6 years old, or maybe 8… when we got the restaurant and I could have anything I wanted any time… As per the Dark Side: Nope again. I’m 100% for personal liberty, responsibility, and freedom. “All in” with the Rebels against the Vadar Soros. You see, we don’t need a leader as we are a self organizing rabble of individuals acting in our own best interests against the Central Authority Oppressors and their NGOs… Trump is just the convenient Figure Head Du Jour. If he fails, another will rise up to take his place. Go ahead, strike him down… but be prepared for what arises after OB1 is struck..

    “The bottom line, for me, is that George Soros is a decent man”

    Probably he thinks so too. Most messianic obsessed megalomaniacs and their followers think that.

    “and a capitalist. ”

    Facts not in evidence. He is certainly a gifted trader, and perhaps a decent manipulator of governments, but at best I’d class him as a ‘3rd Way Socialist” who wants managed markets for his consistent money making pleasure… (Managed Markets being a hallmark of 3rd way socialism).

    “He understands human nature”

    But not his own…

    “and capital markets. ”

    Certainly, lots of folks do. I have about 10 linear feet of them on my bookcase shelf.

    “After the Chief’s remarks about overpaid football players and his defense of tribalism, I wonder if he understands either tribalism or capitalism. ”

    Well, yes and yes. Glad I could clarify… Oh, and do you think football players who get $Millions a season are NOT overpaid? Though why you tied that to the issues of Tribalism is beyond me. Value for work done compared to price paid is not an aspect of defining a Tribe…

    Per capitalism: Aside from being degreed in it, I’ve lived it from about age 8 when I made my first business (made a profit too!) and I had a corporation of my own for about a decade too (also made money).

    “I hope, at the very least, that his analysis of capital markets has brought him riches.”

    Well, I’ve done OK, but that isn’t capitalism. That is trading. Confusing the two has brought many folks to ruin. What works in trading is much more about human nature and the madness of crowds (Soros knows that too, as have several hundred others, at least, in the history of trading) You will find great traders, BTW, in the old USSR. They played some of the western markets perfectly with some of their gold trades, and they way they cleaned our our wheat under Reagan, IIRC, was stellar. China, a “3rd Way Socialism Wannabe” with lots of left over Communism is chock full of masterful traders.

    But, for the record, the bulk of my living expenses for the last decade has come from trading, with about 3 total years of contract work sprinkled in, and it has built up an OK retirement account. I’d have a lot more, but I’m just not greedy enough or that driven to actually apply it every day. Unlike more greedy folks who want $Billions, I have trouble spending $Thousands. I’d rather live cheap and have time, than spend time and have a pile of paper…

    Never, ever confound Capitalism with Trading… Ask Goldman Saks if they make more money from competitive capitalism and open markets, or from trades based on seeding Government with their folks and manipulating governments… Or, hey, just ask your friend Soros…

  26. beththeserf says:

    ‘Now if only I’d known about your love of Popper’s work a year or two ago. Might have
    saved me a few weeks of wandering in the woods.’ Thank goodness you didn’t,
    Chiefio, or we’d have missed your insightful posting.

    Come here for just that, your ‘digging’ and musing thereon. Like the post you did
    on slide rules. )

    Karl Popper ‘Objective Knowledge An Evolutionary Approach’ (Oxford 1978) is
    another source of Popper’s insightful analysis. It’s a series of lectures he gave
    on conjectural knowledge,theory of the objective mind, ‘clocks and clouds ‘ an
    approach to the problems of rationality, a realist view of logic, physics and history
    … and more. All so clearly argued that even a serf can understand.

  27. Gail Combs says:

    We have terms for groups of social animals. For dogs and wolves, it is a pack, lions it is a pride, a group of domestic cats is called a ‘clowder’ and for horses, cows, goats and sheep it is called a herd.
    Serioso, forgets that humans are also herd/pack animals. As E.M. mentions that group is called a tribe.

    In animals two groups can either fight or co-exist depending on the food supply and sexual stimuli. A male animal whether a horse, goat, sheep or human is not very tolerant of non-related dominant males. My buck would tolerate his sons but they knew better than to cross him or get near a female in heat. I have also had a young buck and a young ram go at each other so badly I thought I was going to lose the buck due to blood loss from having his horn ripped off.

    Back to humans. Soros, the idiot, is tossing a bunch of males with 700 AD barbarian ideology in with a bunch of ‘civilized’ unarmed PC wimps. OF COURSE you are going to see rape of any woman not protected and the bombing and the violence.

    Yeah it is TRIBALISM at its nastiest and most brutal. What does a tribe do?
    2. Enslave/castrate all young males
    3. Rape/enslave the females.

    The barbary pirates/muslim raiders have been doing that for1400 years. Why in Hades would ANYONE think they would not continue doing so if given another chance? Especially when that is the political ideology that they embrace and call a ‘religion’?

    In the 1990s a Barbary Coast shipwreck was discovered at Moor Sands on the South Devon coast in England re-emphasizing the hundreds of years of muslim raiding for slaves in Europe.

    For England after 1625 there were great periods, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, even around Bristol, where ships couldn’t leave port. The first of the Muslims showed up in 1625 it caused enormous panic. It was the suddenness. It was a surprise, the fact that there was so many of them and the fact that the English had a coastline which was virtually unprotected.”

    After looking at some dozens of population estimates from a number of different kinds of sources we have an average, year in year out, especially between the years 1580 and 1680 of about 35,000, 34,000 slaves at any given time. Well, knowing this it then becomes a question of estimating simply how many slaves it would be necessary to be taken every year to keep that number. I’ve have estimated overall that between 1530 and 1780, that is about two and a half centuries, something of the order of a million to a million and quarter white Europeans were enslaved and taken to Barbary.”

    The Scourge of Slavery – The Rest of the Story

    Historian Robert Davis in his book “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters – White Slavery In the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy”, estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780. These white Christians were seized in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall. Thousands of white Christians in coastal areas were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim slave masters in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya.

    I think there were still raids on Cornwall into the 1800s. One commenter mentioned his grandma, from Cornwall was scared to death of the muslim raiders so the terror was still alive and well into today. That is one of the reasons the EU and the UK have to kill free speach and criminalize ‘Islamophobia’. When Grandma remebers her grandma was taken as a slave by the Barbary raiders Political Correctness is going to have a bit of a problem.


    In the late 18th century piracy began to arise again. In 1783 and 1784 the Spanish bombarded Algiers to end piracy… The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States did secure peace treaties with the Barbary states, it was obliged to pay tribute for protection from attack. The burden was substantial: in 1800 payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States federal government’s annual expenditures.[23] The United States conducted the First Barbary War in 1801 and the Second Barbary War in 1815 to gain more favorable peace terms; it ended the payment of tribute. But, Algiers broke the 1805 peace treaty after two years, and refused to implement the 1815 treaty until compelled to do so by Britain in 1816….

    The Barbary states had difficulty securing uniform compliance with a total prohibition of slave-raiding, as this had been traditionally of central importance to the North African economy. Slavers continued to take captives by preying on less well-protected peoples. Algiers subsequently renewed its slave-raiding, though on a smaller scale. Europeans at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 discussed possible retaliation. In 1820 a British fleet under Admiral Sir Harry Neal bombarded Algiers. Corsair activity based in Algiers did not entirely cease until France conquered the state in 1830.

  28. Gail Combs says:

    Serioso, also forgets that humans are KILLER apes. we are meat eaters so yeah “human beings are capable of enormous cruelty. ” The islamic terrorists Soros is busy promoting are doing a fine and dandy job of showing that.


    As meat eaters we are also lazy. We are not going to expend any more energy then is absolutely necessary to survive. Think about the amount of time a cat or a dog spends dosing.

    We only have wars when some megalomaniac like Soros drags us into them. Thanks to Christianity most Europeans and Americans are too civilized to kill without a very good reason. They found during WWI most soldiers would not fire on the ‘enemy’

    During World War II, U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall asked average soldiers how they conducted themselves in battle. Before that, it had always been assumed that the average soldier would kill in combat simply because his country and his leaders had told him to do so, and because it might be essential to defend his own life and the lives of his friends.

    Marshall’s singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the combat period, an average of only 15 to 20 “would take any part with their weapons.” This was consistently true, “whether the action was spread over a day, or two days, or three.”

    So why the Heck is Soros and Serioso intent on wiping out Christians and replacing them with the more primitive, barbaric islam ideology???

  29. Larry Ledwick says:

    The Muslim invaders (by immigration) of Europe intend to escalate to civil war and then dominance when they have a critical mass of man power in place (several imams have said so explicitly in arabic language speeches). They forget that Europeans are very capable of conducting their own massacres of those that they find objectionable. In the 1500’s the Catholic French slaughtered thousands of Protestants during the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre – Aug 24, 1572 . This with hand weapons not the modern efficiency displayed by 20th century genocide in Europe. The European Muslims should think long and hard before they start something they can’t finish. Europeans are generally slow to anger to this level of violence but, they are not immune to continuous provocation. Angela Merkel has lit the fuze on a powder keg, I hope she knows how to snuff that fuze before an unstoppable chain reaction of violence drenches Europe in blood like the religious wars of centuries past. The ironic thing is, that by trying to be open and not xenophobic, they are creating exactly the conditions which will inevitably result in violent xenophobia. We are already seeing the precursors of that in the burning of refugee centers.


    King Charles IX of France, under the sway of his mother, Catherine de Medici, orders the assassination of Huguenot Protestant leaders in Paris, setting off an orgy of killing that results in the massacre of tens of thousands of Huguenots all across France.

    Two days earlier, Catherine had ordered the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a Huguenot leader whom she felt was leading her son into war with Spain. However, Coligny was only wounded, and Charles promised to investigate the assassination in order to placate the angry Huguenots. Catherine then convinced the young king that the Huguenots were on the brink of rebellion, and he authorized the murder of their leaders by the Catholic authorities. Most of these Huguenots were in Paris at the time, celebrating the marriage of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the king’s sister, Margaret.

    A list of those to be killed was drawn up, headed by Coligny, who was brutally beaten and thrown out of his bedroom window just before dawn on August 24. Once the killing started, mobs of Catholic Parisians, apparently overcome with bloodlust, began a general massacre of Huguenots. Charles issued a royal order on August 25 to halt the killing, but his pleas went unheeded as the massacres spread. Mass slaughters continued into October, reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bourdeaux, and Orleans. An estimated 3,000 French Protestants were killed in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew’s Day marked the resumption of religious civil war in France.

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    @Gail & Larry:

    One of the things I find most interesting about history is that history of rampant massacre in Europe; yet not in the USA. It seems that a distributed authority and self determination avoid most of such things, here. Something about Kings, Emperors, and Central Authority, not so much…

    We did have one great episode of internal massacre, that being the Civil War. Largely driven, IMHO, by the efforts of the North to prevent self determination in the South. (No, that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of slavery, only the original States Rights / loose federation. Do remember that Rhode Island was a slave State… The north was not pristine… Slavery had begun dying out globally anyway starting with Europe and that was slowly spreading west. It eventually would have entered the South, much as it did Brazil… but without the war).

    We also had a large episode of external massacre, in the indigenous population (aka Indian) wars. That being driven more by greed and desperation on the part of ‘settlers’ and a grossly weakened native population from introduced diseases being unable to defend against the tide.

    So one fits in the European model of blocked self determination. To some extent the other too in that the settlers were often trying to escape just that Central Authority in Europe; but just as much by simple greed and land hunger. Theft from innocents.

    Yet even in them, the ideology driven wars as in Europe just doesn’t show up. About the closest to it was the persecution of the Mormons. Who were eventually accepted when they dumped polygamy… which is odd since in much of the Wild West formal marriage of any kind was a loose concept and ‘variety arrangements’ were just fine… Oh Well…

    To me, it looks like “Live and Let Live” works better than “Go Along To Get Along” especially when forced from above…

  31. Larry Ledwick says:

    Don’t forget Asia and post western discovery America. In Japan vs Nanking and the Spaniards vs Aztec/Inca cultures and in the Caribbean Islands you also have major massacres but again they were officially sanctioned by Imperial governments. I am not sure we are “immune” to such massacres but just that in individualist societies they are more difficult to trigger. All our “massacres” have be slow prolonged individual actions. The Lynchings in the south probably would qualify as a massacre but it was stretched out over almost a century.

    The critical point I think is social acceptance of violence and diminished status of identifiable groups.
    That is much easier to achieve in an all powerful monarchy, or religious theocracy, and fairly difficult in an individualist society with strong freedom of speech.

    Look at what happened with the Japanese internment in the US. Enough people recognized it as an over reaction and an injustice and were able to speak out vigorously about it. Net result it was quickly reversed. Massacres require mob psychology which requires group thinking.

    If everyone is afraid to speak out against the violence it is relatively easy to get to mob behavior. In the deep south the KKK came very close to creating that environment because most folks were afraid to push back against the violence but there was enough outside pressure to make sure that folks knew it was not “accepted behavior” but only tolerated behavior as long as they kept the violence below some local threshold of tolerance.

    That is why Political Correctness is so incredibly dangerous, when you have progressives openly calling for “cleansing” of groups that they disagree with you are only one small step from seeing genocide conditions form.

    Just recently
    we all know about the global warming wackos who have openly called for incarceration or worse for deniers. We are very very close to that critical edge of socially sanctioned violence and ironically it is the folks who accuse the Right of being dangerous that are most supportive of these “final solution” suggestions.

  32. E.M.Smith says:

    Don’t know how to break to those “ethnic cleansing” desiring Aso-Liberals at Politico, but “Southerners” is a state of mind… There’s a whole lota them in Central Valley California (just outvoted by L.A. La-La-Land and SFO) and Back Woods Idaho and East of the Mountains Oregon and…

    Ya can’t get rid-o-Dixie by “cleansing” the South…

  33. Serioso says:

    Per your comments on my post:

    1. I think for myself. I do not swallow other’s views. I barely know who Saul Alinsky is. My views are my own. Really. To say otherwise is an insult.
    2. The main purpose of my comments, in general, is to try to understand why and how someone so obviously intelligent and well-read can be so utterly wrong (in my view) on so many subjects, including (a) heat transfer (b) global warming (c) politics [among other topics]. In my view some of your conclusions are so wide of the mark that they leave me slack-jawed. This happens so often that I rarely comment on what I see are your errors — there are just too many! But, once in a while, you write something that seems so clearly misguided that I imagine I can answer you in a few paragraphs, and without great effort. WRONG! You always respond by crying foul, attributing my views to others, and attempting to view my remarks as a personal insult. I don’t intend any insult. But what can I do when I see that so many of your views are simply crazy, based on what I see is a poor understanding of human nature and an inability to see the world (at least temporarily) through the eyes of others, or to respect the views of mainstream scientists and journalists. You appear to imagine yourself as an expert on all things that matter, to ignore the views of others.
    3. “Human beings are inherently cruel.” This is something that I don’t think you understand. Most of the time, we humans behave in a polite and civilized way. We are constrained by society, by the voices of those around us. But when groups reach some sort of critical mass, bedlam often results. Size is important. History is important. One sees this today in soccer clubs; one sees this occasionally in Trump rallies. Release the social restraints and some followers will resort to violence. Trump seems to encourage this of sort release of social restraints.
    4. Your distinction between market capitalism and stock trading/speculation is probably a distinction without a difference. If I understand things correctly, there was never a trading market under communist rule. Only capitalist societies have trading markets. Or am I wrong?
    5. I plan to continue to offer critiques here for as long as you let me. But only when, as it seems to me, I can do so with as much brevity as I can master.

  34. E.M.Smith says:


    Alinsky, “Rules For Radicals”… short form, pick a target and insult / vilify / attack it. You like to insult, that fits the model. Excuse me for thinking you had read it… I didn’t mean to assume you were wider read than was actually the case.

    “2. The main purpose of my comments, in general, is to try to understand why and how someone so obviously intelligent and well-read can be so utterly wrong (in my view) ”

    Perhaps you might look for the error in the parenthetical part…

    “You always respond by crying foul, attributing my views to others, and attempting to view my remarks as a personal insult. ”

    Funny, I don’t remember crying “foul”. I do point out your (frequent) failure to be polite (about the only rule I have here, and even it is irregularly enforced… well, that and a preference to avoid X rated language). I didn’t attribute your views to others, I did attribute your behaviour to a planned strategy that was described by “Alinsky-ing” (as described above). You might well be a “natural” at it. (I wouldn’t brag on that in most circles…) As per viewing things as “personal insult”:

    “What he does not understand, and seems incapable of understanding”

    At “me” as the person, “incapable of understanding” insulting intellectual capacity.

    “what seems barely to penetrate the consciousness of the Chiefio”

    At “me” as the person, states basically ~’unaware and dense’ as the insult.

    “This is not something the Chiefio seems prepared to understand. ”

    At “me” as the person, insulting intellectual ability or academic preparation (a bit vague).

    “As I see it, the Chief has only the faintest understanding of human behavior, especially mass behavior.”

    At “me” as the person, insulting ability to understand, accusing stupidity of human behaviour.

    “As far as I can tell, he’s swallowed the Kool-Aid, and has gone over to the dark side.”

    At “me” as the person. Accusation of slavish order taking, uncritical thinking, and moral depravity of embracing “the dark side”. I think that qualifies as personal insult.

    “After the Chief’s remarks about overpaid football players and his defense of tribalism, I wonder if he understands either tribalism or capitalism. ”

    At “me” as the person. Assertion of rank incompetence or stupidity on simple terms. i.e. an ad hominem attack / insult.

    Starting to see a pattern? It’s the Alinsky method, even if you don’t recognize it (perhaps you hang out with a bunch of folks skilled in it and just learned it by imitation…) Pick a target. PERSONALIZE IT. Attack them.

    I simply will not allow that method to go unchallenged here. Since it IS a deliberate and taught strategy (widely practiced) the best method to discourage it (other than banning) is to call it out when seen, and repudiate it.

    How to NOT have that in your face? Don’t put a person in your attack, put a topic and when possible, have your attack be not an attack on any attribute of a person.

    That is, do not have a “person as target” and do not have “personalize it” in the attack.

    I’ve told you this a few times now, are you really that dense?

    (See how that last line is “to the person” and contains a personalized attack?…)

    That kind of exchange ends up in flame wars and a trashed site. I don’t allow that to happen.

    “But what can I do when I see that so many of your views are simply crazy, based on what I see is a poor understanding of human nature and an inability to see the world (at least temporarily) through the eyes of others, or to respect the views of mainstream scientists and journalists. ”

    Well, first off, stop spouting garbage like that. It starts off with a direct personal attack. Now I’m crazy (or suffering from crazy ideas, which is substantially the same), and then again the “insult to the person’s intelligence” and an assertion of lack of sympathy… Followed by an amusing “appeal to authority”… a known logic flaw in argument…

    So what to do.

    1) NEVER expect one of the classical logic fails to work with me. I’ve had formal logic training and just can’t swallow them. ANY “appeal to authority” is just a big time waster. Show me their work, and I’ll judge for myself if it’s good or bad.

    2) DO NOT put “me” in any of your sentences unless commenting on my hair color or food preferences, or maybe hobbies after you have been well behaved for a month.

    3) DO put the non-person topic in your sentences and present your (preferably cogent) argument (not including appeal to authority… “Joe said” is about as valuable as “my dog Facho said”.)

    BTW, my empathetic ability is far greater than most. I’m NASA certified in it. (Personality profile used to select astronaut corps… that 12 hours of Med School Psych… plus daily interviews with a Ph.D. Psych plus MMPI plus…) Selected for ability to relate to others and NOT resort to things like insults and fighting…

    So seeing as YOU get so much wrong about me, maybe you ought to consider that you get that much wrong about my ideas (usually not mine, BTW, usually presenting others ideas or my discovery of an interesting thing they saw. Most of us are lucky to have one truly original thought a week).

    “You appear to imagine yourself as an expert on all things that matter, to ignore the views of others.”

    No. Just flat out no. I look carefully at the views of others. Evaluate them. Compare them to a lifetime of understanding. Then reject the stupid ones.

    Expert on all things? Nope. Just a lot of them.

    Don’t ever ask me any questions about ballet, opera, arts of any kind, really. It’s an empty vessel. Have zero skill with ANY of the Asian or tone based languages. Can’t sing worth a damn… (well, maybe worth a damn… for some church songs learned long ago) nor can I read music at all. I play no instrument. (I can make interesting sounds on a few, the recorder / flute being one I like to try from time to time). I can’t do Hamiltonians, and my partial integrals and derivatives are very rusty. I can scratch around the edges of Quantum Mechanics, but it’s really a sophomoric level. I can do a complete overhaul on a 1967 VW in a weekend, but can’t change the starter on my Mercedes, nor tune the engine. I have no ability to make Middle Eastern food, and limited Asian repertoire ( a few kinds of fried rice, sushi of ordinary nigiri type). Oh, and if you expect me to wax rich on Bacon vs Shakespeare, well, forget it. I’ve read some of The Bard, but it was 40+ years ago in high school.

    Now what I am quite good at is the “quick study”. You see, when you call me stupid in some way, you are up against a very hard wall of a lifetime of testing. I’m 99.9 percentile. On many tests. Point me at something, when I’m done with the reading, I’ve pretty much “got it”. ( I once read a 13 volume manual set, about a yard of books, over a weekend and the next week was a “Senior Consultant” on that database product… It had 3 unique languages in it… I also “downloaded’ enough Tourist Italian to get around Rome and handle the hotel and food ordering on the flight over.) So for many things, if it’s new to me, I’ll do a “quick study” on it and be “good enough” for most practical purposes. This posting is an example. I had zero knowledge of Popper (other than the famous rules for Science) and Hagel prior to diving into it. After a week or so more, I’ll have some pretty good depth on both. Marx I knew already… (those two weeks in about 1973)

    Oh, and most things, once learned, stay a long while. After 60 years, I’ve accumulated a lot of them…

    3. “Human beings are inherently cruel.” This is something that I don’t think you understand. Most of the time, we humans behave in a polite and civilized way. We are constrained by society, by the voices of those around us.

    Nope. Not at all correct. For the simple reason it is not true. I, for one, am not “inherently cruel”. Frankly, I didn’t even understand cruelty when I first ran into it. Perhaps it is an Aspe thing (we are rarely violent, but often confused by it) But even there, for your assertion to be true, I’d have to be classed as non-human… I reject that idea (despite what my spouse might say ;-)

    BTW, I am rarely “constrained by voices around me”. In 5th grade I had ONE fight. It was the ‘trendy thing to do’ and I’d not done it and was being roundly criticized for it. I allowed myself to be pushed into a fight with another unfortunate (who seemed to want it). I “won”, but found it unpleasant enough that I have not been so “constrained” by others since. IMHO, it is most often voices exhorting that’s the problem, not constraining…

    My personal lifetime experience is that I, like about 1/2 the population, are fundamentally kind and sensitive people, beset by the other 1/2 that needs the constraining… So far you have regularly rejected the notion that that behaviour, like most others, fits on a bell curve…

    “But when groups reach some sort of critical mass, bedlam often results. Size is important. History is important. ”

    No, when groups reach some sort of critical mass and are exhorted by someone to violence… Like Soros and BLM… (See the above comment by Larry per King Charles…)

    I’m skipping the irrelevant rocks tossed at Trump. I just don’t care.

    “Your distinction between market capitalism and stock trading/speculation is probably a distinction without a difference.”

    Like I said, think that way, lose your shirt. Trading is a particular, specific learned art. Like welding or dance. Market Capitalism is an entire economic theory, system, and a few thousand arts and methods. I do (have done) both for a living. They are vastly different.

    One example: Linear programming is part of process and inventory optimizing. How to do it, when, and why is an economic issue. It is a core part of market economics and capitalism. From Walmart to Costco, it is a key part. Now for trading, you need to know what the other guy is thinking. Find a “win win” for face to face trades, or look at indirect market dynamics (those charts of price, volume, etc.) that I use. You must know your opposite, even if they want to lie and hide. You can’t just apply an optimizing formula as in linear programming. Similarly, Marketing, a key part of market capitalism, uses lot of human psych methods. It’s of zero use in trading…

    “If I understand things correctly, there was never a trading market under communist rule. Only capitalist societies have trading markets. Or am I wrong?”

    You are wrong. The USSR dominated gold trading and was heavy into wheat trading. Now yes, that was “to the outside”. Internally, communism typically tries to use Central Planning Direct Control. That inevitably breaks down (not enough information flow possible). WHEN that happens, they start making internal markets. China did that as the first step out of hard core communism into Lange Type Socialism (that they are still trying to reach).

    For both the Fascist (and Nazi) and the Lange Type Socialism (true, not a Marxist Communism, but we could spend a week on the fine distinctions inside types of Socialism… Note that the Communist USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics… in Marxist Doctrine, the actual communist phase only comes when there is one, single, global Socialism… so per doctrine, there has never been a fully communist State… but that’s down in the theoretical weeds…) But back at the point, in those “3rd way” Socialisms, THE defining thing is that markets are used for all the small stuff and Central Planning only for the big bits, like Steel and Cement… (There’s a ‘finesse’ on Facism / Nazism in that even mid-scale companies are controlled by the Central Authority through planning boards and government representatives, but local management is, well, local… as long as they do what the government Central Planners order…)

    So yes, markets are found all over the socialist and communist economies. What changes is who are the players and at what scale.

    “I plan to continue to offer critiques here for as long as you let me. But only when, as it seems to me, I can do so with as much brevity as I can master.”

    Just follow directions, do not “personalize” or insult folks traits and abilities and we ought to be fine. Hopefully the above will help you with those social skills…

    Speak about TOPICS, Theories, assertions, facts, claims, etc. No worries.

    Question someone’s ability, sanity, qualifications: BZZZZT!

    Oh, and avoid the classical logical fallacies if you can, it saves time…

    Got it?

  35. Serioso says:

    No I don’t get it at all! My mission here is to understand your thinking processes, and to try to figure out why some of these processes seem (to me) irrational, even crazy. So I cannot avoid what you see as insults. I do not know how to avoid making these insults, nor do you. My comments are necessarily personal because I cannot reconcile my two views of you: One view is rational and intelligent, the other irrational to the point of stupidity. It is therefore impossible for me to avoid comments about the person, because that is what interests me the most. So I plan to continue my questions about your ability, sanity, qualifications, etc. These matter to me.

  36. David A says:

    Seriso, The rule our host is requiring is simple. IF you think something anyone said is “stupid” then say what is wrong with what was said, not the person saying it.

    Your presumtion of “stupidity” will then be analyised, something you appear to be unwilling to do.

  37. David A says:

    E.M, thank you for taking the time to a address Soriso.

    The contrast of a tidy mind and one lacking focus, introspection, humility, ( logic more important then personal perspective) often seves to summarize or reinforce the stated logic.

  38. beththeserf says:

    Say Serio-so,
    are you seri-oh-so
    re your ‘ mission, ‘
    as in ‘ vocation, ‘
    or ‘calling of a
    religious persuasion? ‘
    Isn’t ‘ mission,’ a kind of
    high- blown terminology
    fer self promotion-ology?

  39. philjourdan says:

    Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. My wife can help…

    ZING! Ouch! Harpooned that blubber!

  40. Gail Combs says:

    “….One view is rational and intelligent, the other irrational to the point of stupidity. It is therefore impossible for me to avoid comments about the person, because that is what interests me the most. So I plan to continue my questions about your ability, sanity, qualifications, etc. These matter to me.”

    So Serioso just stated that he sees our form of logic “… irrational to the point of stupidity.” And therefore will not use logic but will use Saul Alinsky’s RULE 5:
    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?)

    So Serioso by default is saying that he can not really refute what is said using logic he can only fall back on name calling.

    I think this explains the difference in the ‘rules of logic’ used by those of us with scientific training and those with the touchy feely ‘logic training’ of the John Dewey/George Count infected government school system.

    ECONOMIC THEORIES Org had this to say about the logic of Hegel and Marx. It seems to explain why there can be no meeting of minds between those of us who think objective phenomena and events, aka ‘reality’ exist whether or not a human observes it or those who think there is no way we could ‘Know Reality’ and everything is based within the human mind.

    I ran into that drivel from a philosophy prof at a Louisiana State University giving an hour lecture at a business course. He was trying to tell bewildered line supervisors that they could not ‘know something was real’ I shut him up by challenging him to lie on the R/R tracks outside the window. (A train was due in ~15 minutes) He slunk out of the room to gales of laughter.

    — This is why the intellectuals in their ‘safe spaces’ call the people who deal with reality every day, Irredeemable Deplorables. —

    Back to what ECONOMIC THEORIES Org has to say about The Philosophy Of Karl Marx

    The Hegelian Basis

    The philosophical bases of Marx’s thought were laid early and remained unchanged throughout his life. As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas. Therefore, to account for these changes in ideas was to account for change in the universe.

    In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite. Thus, the idea of light could not exist unless there were an idea of darkness, nor truth without falsity, nor high without low. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis—all in the realm of ideas, since objective reality could exist only in that sphere. Since this process was universal and never ending, it offered a complete explanation of the causal processes creating all phenomena within the universe…

    This idea of “…thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created….” is why there is so much weight put on the ‘97% CONSENSUS’ in Climastrology. As far as the Progressive trained people are concerned that is the SYNTHESIS and reality be d@mned.

  41. E.M.Smith says:

    We’ve been down this road before, and I explained me in a posting. It might be worth a review.


  42. H.R. says:


    I’m half-listening, live as it happens, to Obama addressing the UN. He’s spending a majority of the speech tooting his own horn to establish his legacy. He’s also pointing out that his accomplishments, in his view, are the ones that advanced the Soros agenda.

    I am grateful to you, E.M., for encapsulating Soros’ philosophy and goals. It is clear now who is the puppet-master behind Obama, Hillary, and now it appears, the Bushes. Obama is often quoting verbatim some of the sayings and stated goals of Soros you posted in the above article. At this point, I have no reason to doubt that Soros provided the speech for at least the core of this address.

    I’ll be looking for the transcript. It will be a ‘must read.’

  43. Larry Ledwick says:

    Item on Soros and refugees. He has pledged to give $500 million to support migrants.

  44. Gail Combs says:

    This has a nod to Soros, so it is sort of on topic and a YUGE middle finger to the whole globalist agenda. It is amazing how talented some of the people posting on the internet are.

    Here is that COLD ANGER turned into video art.

    GO KELN!! (The guy who started the ball rolling)

  45. Gail Combs says:

    Larry, The Ford Foundation ( employer of Stanley Ann Durham) now wants to fund Black Lives Matter.

    We are looking at $100 million dollars on top of more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.[Also Soros]

    Ford Foundation will fund Black Lives Matter big time

    …How much money will the Ford Foundation and its partners funnel to BLM? According to Edmund Kozak at PoliZette, the above-mentioned Borealis Philanthropy says the goal is to “bring $100 million in new resources to the Movement for Black Lives.” Without distorting BLM’s work, of course…..

    The folks at the Foundation surely were thrilled by the recent wide-ranging set of BLM demands…

    BLM’s push for total social upheaval and systemic change will be aided and abetted by outfits like Ford Foundation that strike uninformed Americans as mainstream. It will also be aided and abetted by politicians who are viewed as mainstream liberals.

    The left may be overplaying its hand. It’s one thing for BLM organizers and activists to be giddy. They say they have never before felt such a sense of hope and excitement that “total social upheaval” and “systemic change” can be realized in their lifetime. Having little to lose, they naturally want to seize the day.

    It’s another thing for organizations and politicians who pose as mainstream to view the BLM moment as the right time to remove the mask and embrace a group that encourages lawlessness and violence against the police. They have plenty to lose….

    This of course is all about the Communists method of violent revolution.

    William Russell and the Bolsheviks
    The Bolsheviks, during wartime alliances with the U.S., both WWI and WWII, mastered the art of maximizing benefits from the relationship while giving away minimal information. Lenin and Trotsky allowed the Creel Committee to use Russia as a platform for its propagandizing. All the while the communists were observing the Americans, gathering assessment data. The cynical veterans of decades of underground revolutionary espionage activities observed the Americans and marveled at how naïve them Americans really were.

    Many Americans left Russia after diplomatic service or service in the Creel Committee with a clear-eyed understanding of what the Bolsheviks were all about. However, many Americans left Russia in thrall to the communists.

    One who observed and understood was the Creel Committee foreign educational section member, and future dean of Teachers College, William R. Russell. He was in Russia soon after the Bolsheviks seized power and spent considerable time there, working on Creel propaganda against the Germans, for the Bolsheviks, and later against the Bolsheviks. Russell described how he saw the communist tradecraft:

    The way they worked their way to the seizure of power was as follows: Talk about peace, talk about social equality, especially among those most oppressed. Talk about organization of labor, and penetrate into every labor union. Talk on soapboxes. Publish pamphlets and papers. Orate and harangue. Play on envy. Arouse jealousy. Separate class from class. Try to break down the democratic processes from within. Accustom the people to picketing, strikes, mass meetings. Constantly attack the leaders in every way possible so that the people will lose confidence. Then in time of national peril, during a war, on the occasion of a great disaster, or of a general strike, walk into the capital and seize the power. A well-organized minority can work wonders.

    FROM: Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

    So the Democrats are now openly funding criminals and subversives and people want to vote for these DESTROYERS of civilization??? Are they nucking futz? They really want to live a life that is nasty brutal and short wearing chains???

  46. H.R. says:

    Gail wrote:

    So the Democrats are now openly funding criminals and subversives and people want to vote for these DESTROYERS of civilization??? Are they nucking futz? They really want to live a life that is nasty brutal and short wearing chains???

    Remember, it’s the “Big Lie” that people will swallow. Just like Hank, the horse, the useful idiots will be singing the praises of their more equal masters as they are sold to the glue factory. Then it’s too late.

  47. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – I love it! It makes me proud to be a deplorable!

  48. tom0mason says:

    And don’t forget —
    “Liberal billionaire George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents.”
    (Excerpts from The Daily Caller)


  49. Pingback: Serioso And His Discontents | Musings from the Chiefio

  50. Gail Combs says:

    Don’t forget that Ford is not only helping fund Black Lives Matters, they are shipping their car factories to Mexico.

    First take the auto workers jobs (those that are left) and then fund the F…kers who are going to burn down and destroy the neighborhoods. What the heck does Ford care if the USA goes up in flames? They have already moved on.

    In 1970, 25% of the US workforce was in manufacturing — creating real wealth. Now less than 9% of the labour force is in manufacturing and the USA is losing on average 14 factories a day.

    In 2010 Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO and NAFTA was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm

    Most of these owners are financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity.
    The Network of Global Corporate Control

    Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston

    The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability… We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

    And another Article: Financial Core of the Transnational Corporate Class
    “…In this study, we decided to identify in detail the people on the boards of directors of the top ten asset management firms and the top ten most centralized corporations in the world. Because of overlaps, there is a total of thirteen firms, which collectively have 161 directors on their boards. We think that this group of 161 individuals represents the financial core of the world’s transnational capitalist class. They collectively manage $23.91 trillion in funds and operate in nearly every country in the world. They are the center of the financial capital that powers the global economic system. Western governments and international policy bodies work in the interests of this financial core to protect the free flow of capital investment anywhere in the world….”

    Corporations are now controlled by financial institutions thanks to all the leverage buyouts of the 1980s where debt free companies were subject to hostile buyouts and then saddled with the debt from the buyout. Also financial institutions use OUR wealth stored in pensions and mutual funds to increase their control. The owner of the mutual fund is the one who votes the stock not us peons.

    And if you want to name names….
    Financial Core of the Transnational Corporate Class

    Taxes: Where the bankers originally got the wealth used to accumulate power.

    According to the Grace Commission report to President Reagan:

    With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

    NOTE: Since 1913 the US government has been “borrowing” newly created COUNTERFEIT (Banker script) money from the bankers and the American suckers… excuse me taxpayers have been serfs to the bankers ever since. Transfer payments by the way are the cost of transferring money between banks. The US tax payer got stuck with that tab too, not the banks. (Enough of a stink was raised that at least that is no longer true.)

    Not only did we get stuck paying for the interest on the counterfeit bank script, but out taxes have done nothing but increase.

    According to an article in The New Republic of Dec. 2, 1991, in 1948, a married couple with median income and two children, paid only 2% in state, federal, and Social Security taxes. In 1999, Social Security was 15.3%, plus 2.9% for Medicare, out of the first $62,700 in wages, or $11,411.40, and then perhaps 30% in federal taxes…[if you were lucky]…. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/stott021001.html

    NOTE: You are actually paying 30.6% for Social Security and 5.8% for Medicare because the corporations consider it part of your wages and the self-employed like me actually get stuck paying it. That plus a federal tax of 30% gives 66.4% in Federal taxes before you add in state, local and property taxes! So yeah we really are wage slaves. The medieval serfs only had 40% of the wealth they created confiscated by the Aristocracy.

    From 1959 to 2009, fifty years, the money supply increased from 50.5 billion to 2026 billion dollars.

    That means that your wages were DEVALUED and could buy less an less. But not the wages of the CEOs.

    “In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.” http://timelines.ws/subjects/Labor.HTML

    (In 1975 the money supply had only doubled to $113 billion.)

    Where did that money come from? More important where did my wealth go. Here is the short explanation from our friends to the north.

    Money is Created by Banks: Evidence Given by Graham Towers

    Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939.
    Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

    Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)

    Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?
    Mr. Towers: Yes.

    So banks create bank script [Federal Reserve notes] then loan it into circulation and we, chumps that we are, get to pay back not only the principle but the INTEREST with our labour.

    Since Americans created a whole heck of a lot of wealth in the last hundred years, the financiers were able to skim off a major portion of our wealth without killing the host, the US workers. Now people like George Soros and David Rockefeller are no longer content with being thieves they also want to be rulers of the entire world and are willing to collapse the entire system in their effort to force their will on the rest of us.

    If they blow it, and given China’s is not going to play along, these meglomaniacs could sink the entire world back into another Dark Ages. A radioactive Dark Ages.

    Trump and Putin are the only glimmers I see in this dark future.

  51. Pingback: Nations and Cultures Attacked | LOVE FREEDOM TRUTH

  52. Larry Ledwick says:

    Just another item to add to the list of the slow inch by inch effort by the left to “Normalize” violence and genocide against groups with which they disagree. We ought to assemble a list of such references some place, as they seem to be accumulating drip by drip as the subliminal message slowly goes mainstream that it is okay to advocate killing or imprisoning those whom you disagree with.


  53. Gail Combs says:

    All those FORD and Soros millions just went to work!

    The Charlotte NC Police (CMPD) says a Black officer shot and killed an armed man. They also say they have the gun the man pointed at him. The family of course says he didn’t have a gun. However shooting a black criminal is against Obama’s policies since Blacks are a “Protected Class”. As the Baltimore Mayor said “we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that”

    So the reality is a BLACK cop shot a BLACK criminal with a GUN.

    Therefore Hillary is fanning the flames by tweeting:
    “Another unarmed Black man was shot in a police incident. This should be intolerable. We have so much work to do. #TerenceCrutcher”

    North Carolina Mob Attack Female Truck Driver – Police Refuse to Help, Desperate Calls To Media Chopper…

    Following an officer involved shooting in Charlotte North Carolina yesterday a mob of angry protestors assembled. Immediately the protesting mob began attacking police officers and vehicles. The mob clashed with police and riot squads were called, tear gas deployed….

    The mob grew into approximately a thousand people who then moved collectively onto interstate 85 and blocked traffic. Several vehicles were caught by the mob included numerous tractor trailers.

    They then threatened the drivers and stole and burned the cargo.

    At 3:39 AM Mark Barber reported “Dozens of protesters are breaking into the Walmart on North Tryon Street.” While Ashton Pellom of WBTV reported “Members of SWAT team [just sitting] on a CATS bus near Walmart on N. Tryon.” @ 3:53 AM
    Charlotte NC is a Progressive Sanctuary City so the police were probably told to stand down.

    12 officers injured according to @CMPD – one hit with rock. Medic says 8 people were taken to the hospital by 4:37 AM according to Kristen Miranda of WBTV

    If Soros get us to accept this rioting and domestic terrorism as “protesting”…
    Then what is next?
    Islamic terrorism = “protesting”?
    The European Union is certainly trying to push that narrative. A narative that terrorism is just something people are going to have to learn to live with and accept. That terrorism is the new NORM.

    We are already hearing this when the Progressives say things like Trump is the cause of the most recent bombings. Meaning if ONLY we would accept Sharia Law and become good Muslims the terrorism would stop.

  54. Gail Combs says:

    This is the week for SOROS inspired violence. Obama gave a speech yesterday at the UN and did nothing but criticize the American People. Barack and Michelle have been making speeches, and Hilliary hit all the “black” functions like CBC, Black Women, etc. in the span of 3 days. The Progressives want a race issue first and fore most because they have nothing else to run with in this election and the Black vote is showing signs of defecting to Trump.

    Think the trumped up crap about Zimmerman and you will understand the thinking that lead to these riots. North Carolina is a battleground state. Obama lost NC in 2008 and won NC in 2012 by narrow margins thanks to the pillorying of Zimmerman. Democrat polling shows that they have lost ground in NC. The media said yesterday ”Trump took the lead in North Carolina” In North Carolina where both Trump and Hitlery had rallies because early voting is going on now in NC. However Hitlery missed her Chapel Hill rally (I was SOOOooo looking forward to going and yelling PEPE!)

    We already know that the Hillary/Soros machine was staging paid protests against Trump.**
    Note the location where this happened is in proximity to UNCC. Colleges where students are separated from their families and indoctrinated in a socialist controlled environment. This is why we see many white people with signs among the rioters. More useful idiots.

    Charlotte is called the “Wall Street of the South” It is a big banking city, run by democrat globalists, the biggest city in NC. Isn’t it a handy coincidence that this happened in Charlotte? The city that brought us mandatory transgender bathrooms?

    *Not only were their Craiglist ads for protestors but there is the The United Methodist Connection where those Soros terrorists were organized for the Albuquerque NM riots at the Trump rally.

    This was found by people at the ConservativeTreeHouse. It is the meeting place of PSL “The Party for Socialism and Liberation believes that the only solution to the deepening crisis of capitalism is the socialist transformation of society.’

    Guess Who? – The Albuquerque Trump Protests Were 100% Organized Political Astroturf…

    University Heights United Methodist Church
    2210 Silver Ave SE
    Albuquerque NM 87106
    (505) 266-2525

    This was the Albuquerque NM riot where Soros Terrorists were throwing rocks at police horses and brought down one horse. link


    F..KING B..stards. So much for Animal rights and enviromentalism. They are nothing but irredeemable criminals bent on destroying civilization and looting it.

  55. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – you got Obama’s wins reversed. He won in 08 and lost in 12.

    But I agree with you. Hillary’s tweet – without verification, is exactly what she tried to accuse Trump of with the bombings. But it is going to backfire. I guess they forgot 68 Chicago. The rioters will vote for her (but they would have in the beginning), but others are going to be frightened by the violence and look for a safer solution.

  56. Gail Combs says:

    YesterdayObama was telling the UN that the US has to give up freedoms in order to meet UN goals. One of those goals is the control of small arms in the hands of the serfs masses.

    Obama and Hillary and Soros want to disarm the Irredeemable Deplorables.

    Remember the idea was floated in Congress that ANYONE on the government Terrorist Watch List would be disarmed. Well Hillary just told us WHO she thinks should go on that watch list…. Most of those who are registered as republican voters and especially those who just changed their registration or just registered.

    That Watch List is secret and there is NO WAY to get off it.

    Sure sounds like Soros and his Progressive buddies are using the same playbook as pre WWII Germany. link

  57. Gail Combs says:


    Let’s hope it backfires.

    If we had a real Fourth Estate instead of an actual Fifth Column it would be a slam dunk. At this point, if this country blows it’s top I would NOT want to be a journalist. Too many are catching on to the fact that the MSM news is propaganda and the Cold Anger against journalists is a lot greater than against politicians that we expect to be sleazy.

    Just read some of the comments at ConservativeTreeHouse. And these are mild mannered polite Christian folks.

    Here are a few of the comments.
    I especially like “The press has always been staffed by obsequious rumpswabs and toadies…”

    U.S. Journalists are suffering from contagious “ideological affluenza”

    The cork is out of the bottle and they can’t put it back. Last night, I learned about the police officers being shot in Philly and Ft Worth on the internet. There was nothing on the television news at all, not even the Dallas/Ft Worth local channels. People who rely on televised news stay dumb to the facts.

    CNN wants to equate Trump to Saddam? Pulease. Eason Jordan bent over backwards averting his eyes when Saddam tossed people in wood chippers. Remember Eason Jordan? He’s the guy that admitted CNN knew about Saddam’s atrocities but looked the other way for access. The closest thing to that in this election is the way the press averts its eyes when Hillary stumble-bums her way to her Ambulance.

    Just carrying on the proud tradition of Walter Duranty.

    It would seem we have a slight difference in our medical diagnosis. Mine is a moderate to severe case of intellectual rigor mortis.

    who and why journalists deleting comments sections, etc.:

    “…political reporters, are just stupid rich kids. The parents have done well so they send their smart kid off to law school, while the dull one is sent off to journalism school. The result…is a culture dominated by.. nitwits too dumb to realize they are stupid.
    ..have fragile psyches so seeing their mistakes highlighted .. is a source of constant distress.
    When you live in the snow globe of opinion journalism, the outside world is horrifying. That’s why you went into the snow globe in the first place, to get away from the cold, pitiless world of reality. .. those angry Dirt People.. with their facts and reason just don’t get it. Many of them don’t even have a PhD. They are ruining it for everyone!
    ..People in the media have long viewed themselves as the fourth estate, part of the ruling class, but policing the ruling class. This was always nonsense. The press has always been staffed by obsequious rumpswabs and toadies…so only the most blinkered and stupid thrive. Suddenly, these dullards are learning that the rest of us have no respect for them.”


  58. Gail Combs says:

    A few more comments that deserve special notice.

    We already have ‘free speech zones,’ prosecutions for ‘Hate Speech’ and now the shutting down of access to alternate media.

    YouTubers Are Freaking Out About Money and ‘Censorship’

    The flip side is just as ugly. Notice that our ‘regular conservative media’ like Fox News and News Max are Clinton donors. Controlled opposition anyone?
    Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals

    NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation’s records show.

    The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry’s ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation.

    The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.

    Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation….


    Carlos Slim [Mexican]
    Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder

    James Murdoch
    Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox

    Newsmax Media
    Florida-based conservative media network

    Thomson Reuters
    Owner of the Reuters news service



    News Corporation Foundation
    Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company


    Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

    Richard Mellon Scaife
    Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review


    Abigail Disney
    Documentary filmmaker

    Bloomberg Philanthropies

    Howard Stringer
    Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive

    Intermountain West Communications Company
    Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)


    Bloomberg L.P.

    Discovery Communications Inc.

    George Stephanopoulos
    ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent

    Mort Zuckerman
    Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report

    Time Warner Inc.
    Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting




    Hollywood Foreign Press Association
    Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards



    Knight Foundation
    Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism

    Public Radio International

    Turner Broadcasting
    Parent company of CNN



    Parent copmany of NBCUniversal

    NBC Universal
    Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC

    Public Broadcasting Service


    Robert Allbritton
    Owner of POLITICO


    AOL Huffington Post Media Group

    Hearst Corporation

    Judy Woodruff
    PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor

    The Washington Post Company

    Unbiased??? I do not think so.

    So the very d@mning list of globalist/progressive connections is out there and the audience is large. Traffic numbers for the Treehouse is somewhere in the area of 300,000 people monthly. Gateway Pundit and Drudge are a heck of a lot higher and there is a lot of crossing with the Conservativetreehouse. (I was surprised to see Infowars is really high, competing well with the ‘name brands’ in the news.)

    I was looking at https://www.quantcast.com and Red flag for my guestimate.

  59. Jeff says:

    KInd of hypocritcal that (thanks to crooked LBJ) churches cannot, as it were, preach about politics, yet the mainscream-media church of the eternal left-hand path can preach all that it wants. At our expense, and to our expense.

    Another thing I find interesting is that Hillary cancelled her event in NC before the shooting. Could she have known ahead of time? (This is being speculated on over at BB and elsewhere). Maybe she and her Soros crew are planning more “events”. These seem to play to the gun control crowd, at least the media spin is going strongly that way.

  60. Gail Combs says:

    Note that a BLACK cop shooting a BLACK gunman gets blown all over the MSM but four cops being shot in the same week gets ZERO coverage.

    “Two Fort Worth, Texas police officers were shot on the evening of September 16, although both are still alive, and the suspect died after being cornered in a shed…

    A few hours later came word that two Philadelphia police officers were also shot on Friday night, with their condition reportedly stable; Philly police said four civilians were also shot, the gunman is dead, and one officer was ambushed in her squad car..”

    In Chicago, with some of the toughest gun laws, mainly black on black shootings

    September to Date
    Shot & Killed: 40
    Shot & Wounded: 198
    Total Shot: 238
    Total Homicides: 43

  61. E.M.Smith says:


    I think the donations by folks like Fox are less about “controlled opposition” and more about “protection money”. Were I running Fox, I’d have donated, just so I could have a little access and hopefully avoid punitive laws… When The Don’s are openly taking money for favors, you don’t want to be the one guy saying Nawh!!! or someone else will be ‘given’ your turf…

  62. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yep what you call a cost of doing business in a corrupt market.

  63. Gail Combs says:

    E.M. …I think the donations by folks like Fox are less about “controlled opposition”

    Nope Fox is vey definitely ‘controlled opposition’.

    From my notes about a 1/2 year ago.

    FOX News is One of Top 10 Largest Donors to the Clintons

    Fox is OWNED by foreigners who want open borders. Murdoch and his buddy Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal who is a major shareholder in Fox and Citigroup.

    …Rupert Murdoch-Open Borders: The link is that the Rupert Murdoch (Chairman/CEO News Corp, Owner of Fox News) is co-chair of the open borders group, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE). PNAE was one of biggest supporters of Marco Rubio and the Gang of 8 Immigration Reform Bill/Amnesty push. They flooded the airways and media with pro immigration reform propaganda. Fox News was also devoid of unbiased reporting of this bill….

    Murdoch and Ailes support of open boarders and the Gang of 8 immigration revamping has never been disclosed by Fox News ….
    Murdoch has also stated: “We need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing. “

    BREITBART: The Anti-Trump Network: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group

    Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful immigration lobbying firms in country, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE).

    In addition to blanketing the country, media, and politicians with literature, advertisements, and a barrage of lobbyists pushing for open border immigration policies, the Partnership for A New American Economy (PNAE) was a prime lobbyist for one of the biggest open borders pushes in American history: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%’s 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill….

    Interestingly, Bill Sammon — FOX News’s vice president of News and Washington managing editor — is the father of Brooke Sammon, who is Rubio’s press secretary.

    As Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 36% and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 37%
    told The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza back in 2013, Fox News was essential to the Rubio-Schumer effort to expand immigration levels beyond all known historical precedent…

    Prince Alwaleed bin Talal The Stockholder in the Sand

    …. the enigmatic Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has very public holdings: he is the second-largest voting shareholder in News Corp., he owns Paris’s George V hotel and part of New York City’s Plaza hotel, he is a stockholder in Apple….—a calorie-counting cell-phone addict who loves texting James Murdoch

    One of the largest shareholders in Citigroup, the second-largest voting shareholder in News Corporation after the Murdoch family, and with major stakes in dozens of other Western companies, he travels the globe….

    Over the last two decades, he has swooped in with tons of cash to aid various companies and superstars at their low points, including London’s Canary Wharf, Citigroup, EuroDisney, Apple, Donna Karan (the company), and Michael Jackson, to name but a few. On the day of our second meeting, in late April 2012, the prince was clutching a small string of prayer beads as he talked about News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and Citigroup’s then C.E.O., Vikram Pandit.

    The ties between Alwaleed and Murdoch run deep. Alwaleed owns 56.2 million shares of Murdoch’s News Corporation; News Corporation, in turn, owns a 19.9 percent stake, worth around $150 million, in Rotana, Alwaleed’s privately held pan-Arab media conglomerate, based in Bahrain. As much of the world knows by now, last year was not a good year for Murdoch. Due to a phone-hacking investigation into his British newspapers, he was forced to close the major London tabloid News of the World, abandon his bid for control of the satellite network BSkyB, shunt aside his younger son and heir apparent, James, and testify before Parliament about the company’s abuses of power. Some 32 people, most of them former and current News Corp. employees, have been arrested since the phone-hacking scandal was uncovered…..

    ….He remains supportive of 40-year-old James. “James is not my partner only in News Corp.,” Alwaleed said. “He’s also my partner in the Rotana. . . . He’s a highly ethical, professional, decent man. I think of his honesty. I’m thinking of him. I know him very well.” They are texting pals, and James is on his speed dial…..

    Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud Resource Page: “If I am going to do something, I do it spectacularly or I do not do it at all.” — Prince al-Waleed bin Talal bin Ab Al-Saud

    Howlin’ Mad Murdoch: Rupert Murdoch’s immigration sermon

    More recently, Megyn Kelly accused former CEO Roger Ailes of sexual harassment allowing Murdoch to kick out Ailes, a friend of Trump, and turned Fox over to his left leaning sons.
    Most of all though, it reflects a belief that there isn’t anybody with Ailes’ politics from inside or outside the network whom Lachlan and James — 44 and 43, respectively, youthful globalist moderates largely living in an anti-Fox world — could work with or even tolerate.

  64. Pingback: Guest Post: Robert Carruthers – Some bad ideas never die | Catallaxy Files

  65. Pingback: Putin Starts His October Move – Pivot To Shia and Wet Kiss to Saudi | Musings from the Chiefio

  66. Pingback: Hagel – A Song Sung Low | Musings from the Chiefio

  67. dirkhblog says:

    “I’d known that the Nazi and Marxist beliefs stemmed from the same Socialist root, but had not realized there was a point in (philosophical) time where you could peg the split and a single person where they were joined. Hegel was the join with his justification of the Dominance Of State; then it splits into Right Hegel and Left Hegel and you get National Socialists vs International Socialists (Communists).”

    Hegel talks about abstract qualia. Marx and Engels as pure materialists try to find these opposite property pairs in the material world.
    There are several influences more important than Hegel IMHO:
    On Marx, Sabbatheanism/Frankism with their negation of the ten commandments; and Darwinism (Marx and Engels got themselves the first edition of the origin of species and were delighted, finding in Darwins selection the means of creating the New Man: Yes: The Class Struggle of Marx was designed to purge humanity of the intelligent = the Bourgeosie = the citizen, leading to the 30% culling in the USSR and in Kambocha and Mao’s China: These democides are all cookie cutter Marxist operations: Selection)
    The purpose of this selection is to cultivate the New Man (using Eugenics, invented by Francis Galton, cousin of Darwin, member of the ultra-rich Darwin clan) which would be incapable of behaving in non-communist ways: A zombie so braindead he does not know the concept of ownership anymore.
    Killing people for selection purposes is of course exactly what a Frankist likes.

    On the Nazis, the big influences are Mazzini as the 19th century father of the concept of a tribal i.e. ethnically pure nation; (which is of course also the root of the Young Turks and their genocide against the Greek and Armenian Christians; and also the root (here combined with Frankism / Sabbatheanism AND Marxism) of Labor Zionist Israel: The Kibbuzim practiced Marxist communism and Frankist wife-swapping (they didn’t form pairs))
    . And the other influence on the Nazis being Nietzsche (the line Schopenhauer-Nietzsche-Whitehead is in my view NOT Hegelian -or at least they didn’t misunderstand Hegel’s qualia as material objects-; but explores the notion of the world itself as a development process or a mental process. Keywords Die Welt Als Wille Und Vorstellung; Nietzsche’s Will To Power, Whiteheads “Being as Becoming”, the Nazis: “Triumph Of The Will” – in this line you find also a fascination with buddhist/hinduist concepts, notice the Ahnenerbe expiditions of the Nazis.)
    Hmm, well, and the Nazis ALSO used Eugenics, But then EVERYBODY did; Woodrow Wilson was a eugenicist, John Maynard Keynes (married into the ultrarich Darwin clan) was PRESIDENT of the Eugenics society; the Irish Fabian Socialist G B Shaw famously called for the lazy to be exterminated in the gas chamber. And that while KNOWING that the 1845 potatoe famine in Ireland was a genocide engineered by the Brits! Who exported all non-potatoe produce during the entire famine to England, telling the starving Irish, you can eat the potatoes (which were failing. Which the Brits knew in advance as the potatoe blight had been ravaging the continent already – but caused no famine there, as peasants simply ate other produce). So the Irish potatoe famine was the original, Stalin’s/Yagoda’s Holodomor in Ukraine was just a perfect copy, similar in scale (I think 5 million starved Irish, 7 million starved Ukrainians.)

    The concepts eugenics and socialism are so prevalent in new social movements of the 1920ies – the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 as an islamic socialist movement – Technocracy in USA ca. 1930 was VERY socialist, – they really all thought they had something great there.

    And. Does Soros misread and abuse Popper? YES. Intentionally so? In my opinion: In the most cynical fashion, yes. He knows exactly that flooding the EU with Muslims will DESTROY Popper’s cherished “Open Society”. I mean everyone with an IQ above room temperature sees this. Meaning, Merkel doesn’t.

Comments are closed.