Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Tuesday, November 25, 2014
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part II (Continued I) By: Rachel Ehrenfeld and Shawn Macomber
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 29, 2004


NEW WORLD ORDER

The constant theme in Soros’ writing is the need for an end to America as the world’s preeminent power. During a September 2003 State Department Open Forum speech, Soros proposed a “modification of the concept of sovereignty” which was necessary because “sovereignty is basically somewhat anachronistic.” His attacks on capitalism similarly lead to the same conclusion. A one- world government is the only thing to bring balance to the economies of the world.

He stresses this in his article, The Capitalist Threat, writing, “Laissez-faire ideology does not prepare us to cope with this challenge. It does not recognize the need for a world order. An order is supposed to emerge from states’ pursuit of their self-interest. But, guided by the principle of survival of the fittest, states are increasingly preoccupied with their competitiveness and unwilling to make any sacrifices for the common good.”

Soros’ proof of this was the supposed failure of Western nations to lend a hand in Russia after the fall of communism.

“The combination of lassiez-faire ideas, social Darwinism, and geopolitical realism that prevailed in the United States and the United Kingdom stood in the way of any hope for an open society in Russia,” Soros wrote. “If the leaders of these countries had had a different view of the world, they could have established firm foundations for a global open society.” Faster than you can say New World Order, there it is.

Of course, as usual, Soros’ eccentricities become more nefarious when combined with his vast fortune. Bringing about a global order and smashing sovereignty based on national borders has become a major focus of the Open Society Institute in recent years, primarily through the so-called Justice Initiative, which seeks to give, “local meaning to global norms.”

What exactly does that mean? Who knows. The rhetoric coming out of the Justice Initiative makes it sound as if there is an egalitarian global order out there already, and it is only being held up by selfish, “stable” countries like the United States. A major goal of the Justice Initiative is to give the International Criminal Court – -an attack on our sovereignty so heinous even John F. Kerry voted against it – jurisdiction over every nation in the world.

“The Justice Initiative contributes to the application, enforcement, and dissemination of international legal principles at the local level—whether helping judges to apply international due process rules to pretrial detention decisions, building community capacity to secure police accountability consistent with international standards, or collaborating with lawyers to secure local court enforcement of regional nondiscrimination norms,” the OSI website informs us. “The financial and jurisdictional limits of the ICC, as well as the frequent unwillingness or inability to prosecute on the part of the states most concerned, makes necessary investigation and prosecution by other states, notably through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Thus, legislation, institutional reform, and the preparation and promotion of cases will all be needed to ensure that national systems fulfill their role in ending impunity.”

Two of the nations resisting this “universal jurisdiction” are the United States and Israel, and with good reason. In the current political climate, where even allies of the United States such as France and Germany are throwing ludicrous claims of war crimes at her, signing onto the ICC would be an open invitation by the United States to the world for endless persecution of Americans. Israel, the only country more despised by the world than America, would do virtually nothing but defend itself from such claims. Israeli leaders (and many of their American counterparts) would become virtual prisoners in their home countries, lest they step outside their borders and be arrested by blue helmeted world police.

There is no element of fairness built into the ICC and other bodies of world law. One needs no better proof of the injustice than the recent World Court ruling attempting to end the construction of a barrier between Israel and the West Bank, literally the only thing that has been able to end diminish the suicide bombers three- year reign of terror. When Jews must be made to die to satisfy the Arab/Muslim agenda, joined by the anti-Semitism of Europeans who have romanticized the bunch of thug terrorists running the Palestinian Authority, it is exceedingly clear that the world cannot be trusted. Do we in America want to see a day when we cannot defend ourselves? When we cannot set our own border policy? The great majority of Americans say no. George Soros says yes. The only question left is who will prevail?.

Think Soros is destined to lose that battle? Don’t be so sure. “Although I remain a champion of losing causes, how much closer I have come to realizing them than when I first started!” he wrote a few short years ago. He has no interest in American society as such. “Of course what I do could be called meddling because I want to promote an open society,” he told Hemispheres magazine. “An open society transcends national sovereignty.” That’s no American patriot talking. That’s a liberal elitist determined to lay the foundation for a One World Government, and it is nothing new.

The end of American sovereignty has long been a part of the “Soros Doctrine,” as he likes to call it. He is constantly praying for the day when a weakened United States can be at the mercy of international institutions. “Our attachment to superpower status is understandable,” Soros writes in Underwriting Democracy, “but it is nonetheless regrettable, because it prevents the resolution of a simmering crisis.”

And who would pay for this One World Government? Even Soros doesn’t have that kind of cash, but lately he’s begun plugging the so-called “Tobin Tax,“ an international currency transactions tax. In other words, a globally run Marxist system for worldwide income redistribution. For those who can’t read between the lines, let’s make this as blunt as possible: They want the U.N. to be able to take what they openly admit will be hundreds of billions of dollars from the American economy and send it off into the world wherever they please. One of the leaders of the initiative, Robin Round, recently declared at an NGO conference in Montreal that “one of the major obstacles” to the tax was the U.S. and activists praise the tax as a way to lower American living standards as a prelude to some murky, undefined “sustainable development” for the rest of the world.

The aims of the project are quite clear. Just as the ICC seeks to restrain American military power, the Tobin Tax, almost like bin Laden’s doctrine, seeks to restrain and destroy American economic power. These are all baby steps on the way forcing the end of American nationhood, which is a considerable hurdle to global dominion. Hilary French of the Worldwatch Institute, another proponent of the tax, went so far as to advise Americans to get over “the sovereignty thing,” and recommended that Europe and other proponents “shame the United States” into accepting the tax.

Another interesting aspect of this is Soros’ lifelong interest in Esperanto, the so-called universal language. In a 1986 article in the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows describes the atmosphere of a meeting of the International Esperanto Congress in China: “Their dream of world brotherhood through a planned international language is so touchingly unrealistic; the proportion of oddball among them so high.” Friendless in London at 17, Soros took to the soapbox at Hyde Park to argue publicly, according to Kaufman’s book, as to, “the utility of an international language in Esperanto.”

This odd language ended up as the basis for the name Soros, according to an article by Joshua Muravchik in Commentary. “At some point during the boys’ childhood, the parents decided to change the family name and chose the Hungarian sounding but in fact obscure Soros,” Muravchik writes. “It means ‘soar’ (in the future tense) in Esperanto, the made-up, trans-European language promoted by those who dreamed of a world free of nationality. [Soros’ father] Tivadar was among its leading proponents.” Tividar would later write his memoir in Esperanto.

“Created over a hundred years ago, Esperanto was not just a language, but a movement for international understanding and peace,” web columnist and Esperanto proponent C. Keith Ray wrote last year, scoffing that in “McCarthy era” America, “Esperanto was associated with Communism,” but nevertheless allowing that, “perhaps some American Communists were using it as a ‘secret language.’”

One more strange piece of the Soros puzzle.

Soros has been preparing these utopian schemes for some time. In grade school, Soros once wrote a story about a donkey named Peaceful that ended a barnyard war. It’s a very touching story, really. And who knows, if a jackass with $7 billion can take over vast swaths of the world, who are we to doubt the potential of a donkey?

INVASION U.S.A.: SOROS TAKES ON THE HOMEFRONT

When Soros finally began to turn an eye towards the United States in recent years, his domestic agenda turned out to be schizophrenically varied, and more than a bit outside the mainstream. “I have started to pay more attention to my adopted country,” Soros wrote in the Washington Post in 1997, “because I feel the relatively open society we enjoy here is in danger.”

Gara LaMarche, president of Soros’ U.S. operation the Open Society Institute
(OSI), promises in the organization’s 2004 report to continue to establish a “systematic response sufficient to the challenge of radical right-wing dominance” and to “educate the public about the impact of federal budget and tax cuts on state and local services.” So what are some of the challenges posed by this supposed “right-wing dominance”? “Some were unforeseeable, such as the assault on civil liberties after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” LaMarche writes. What was September 11 again? Oh right, that was that attack George Soros didn’t want us to respond to in any way. “Others are the product of a long-term, multi-faceted, right-wing strategy to discredit public institutions and services (such as health and education), human rights, legal protections against discrimination, and other aspects of an open society.”

Wow, conservatives are really, really evil. But the conspiracy only grows corroding according to this Soros funded organization: “The state of justice in America is but one part of a political and policy landscape formed by 25 years of steady investments made by right-wing forces in a network of think tanks, scholars, advocates, litigation and media. Tax cuts that starve the government of revenue, reducing the amount of spending for education, health and other human needs, are another example of right-wing influence.”

(OSI) gave out more than $130 million to various causes throughout the United States. It gives a nice little window into what Soros would like to shape the whole of America into: A secular, post-modern, culturally relativist society. In other words, not at anything at all like the America we know, and many of us love, today.

Long term, if Soros has his way, the United States won’t even remain territorially intact. He funds both the National Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, two groups that want to essentially eliminate America’s borders. In a much hailed 1997 speech to the National Council of La Raza, former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said that he “proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory” enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important a very important part of this. OSI has likewise contributed $65,000 to the Malcolm X Grassroots movement, which wants to establish an all-black homeland in the Southeastern United States, from South Carolina to Louisiana. It would be communist, of course.

“Most disturbing, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement’s website lionizes a group of ‘political prisoners,’ all of whom were convicted of killing policemen,” writes FrontPage Magazine editor Ben Johnson. “Sundiata Acoli, Robert Seth Hayes, Jalil Muntaquin, Herman Bell and Russell Maroon Shoats were all radical black revolutionaries, serving with the Black Panthers and/or Black Liberation Army.”

These murders, according to the group’s website, were perfectly acceptable: “In 1970, along with 5 others, Maroon was accused of attacking a police station, which resulted in an officer being killed. This attack was said to have been carried out in response to the rampant police brutality in the Black community.”

With his involvement in the Project on Death in America, Soros said he hoped to promote discussion of an American taboo. “There’s a widespread denial of death in America,” he explained. “We have been told all about sex, but very little about dying. Yet dying is even more widespread than sex.” This is yet another in a long line of failures Soros sees in American society. During a speech at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Soros expanded on his rather odd perception: “In America, the land of the perpetually young, growing older is an embarrassment, and dying is a failure,” he said. “Death has replaced sex as the taboo subject of our times. People compete to appear on talk shows to discuss the most intimate details of their sex lives, but they have nothing to say about dying, which in its immensity dwarves the momentary pleasures of sex.” Who would watch day time talk shows if all they talked about was death? Can Soros find it in his own humanity to understand why people prefer talk about sex instead of death? One encompasses joy, or at the very least life, and the other is the ultimate sorrow. Since most people strive for happiness, there is unlikely to be a time when we find joy either in dying or discussing the inevitability of death. Perhaps Soros expects too much from us. Perhaps he expected too much from his own father, who Soros “wrote off” because after receiving a diagnosis of terminal cancer he “unfortunately wanted to live.”

“I was kind of disappointed in him,” Soros said, belying his humanity yet again.

The foundation shies away from the term euthanasia, but Soros makes it clear he believes that the “use of technology to extend life when life when life has no meaning doesn’t make sense.” The question of what constitutes a life with “meaning” is one Soros, the philosopher king, surprisingly refuses to delve into. Nevertheless, when later speaking about a physician-assisted suicide law that had passed in Oregon, Soros said in a speech, “As the son of a mother who was a member of the Hemlock Society (a pro-suicide group), and as a reader of Plato’s ‘Phaedra,’ I cannot but approve.”

Though now defunct, Project On Death in America director Kathleen Foley said much had been accomplished in changing the social mores of America vis-à-vis death. “PDIA invested heavily in the academic faculty and clinician leader who would spearhead change,” she wrote. “These individuals are changing both attitudes and practice in their academic medical centers, hospices, hospitals, and schools of medicine, nursing, and social work.”

Soros, always up for an opportunity to display his personal eccentricities before an audience, once explained to a crowd how he “came to terms with my own death” – which unsurprisingly is deeply steeped in the same pseudo-philosophical babble everything else he says is:

“Building on my own insight that there is always a divergence between ideas and fact, I came to the conclusion that it is the idea of my death which I cannot accept because it is a total denial of my consciousness. The fact of dying, when it comes, may be much more acceptable, especially if it comes at the end of a long life. The insight that the idea is not the same as the fact made the idea more bearable…”

“As people come to terms with death, recognizing it as a fact of life, then the demand for physician-assisted suicide, as well as for unnecessary medical interventions, will drop.”

In his long worked on, but never released, philosophical treatise, The Burden of Consciousness, Soros proudly held up his willingness to face death as one of the many things that separated him from mere mortals. He complained about those who choose to ignore death, which was exactly what the, “large faceless masses of society, who are not very much aware of their own individual existence, are doing.”

Feel more comfortable yet? Is this really the kind of jumbled mind that we want to be helping to set end of life policy in America?

In a ploy to get at this whole “death” issue without having to bother with the “life” issue, Soros also has routed millions of dollars to the Planned Parenthood Federation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union to help, “incorporate emergency contraception and early abortion services into the services of comprehensive neighborhood health centers” and “public hospitals catering to low-income and immigrant patients.” Equal opportunity for abortion is yet another benefit of an open society, apparently.

The wedge issue of abortion is politically useful, Ellen Chesler, director of OSI’s Program on Reproductive Health and Rights, admits: “It has become important for its symbolic value as well as its actual value,” she writes on the OSI website.

Soros also finances a multiple front effort to decriminalize drugs. “A drug free America is simply not possible,” Soros explains. In his post-drug war world, a “strictly controlled distribution network” would dispense drugs and tax them to fund treatment centers. But, in effect, that’s not really where most of the Soros’ money went. One of his programs, “Shoot Smart, Shoot Straight” constituted a user kit for crack cocaine smokers, for example. What exactly does one put in a crack smoking kit? Wonderful question. According to a 1999 piece in Insight Magazine, “The user kit includes two condoms, antiseptic towelettes, triple antibiotic ointment, two alcohol swabs, five vitamin C tablets, copper wool, a few rubber bands, a rubber mouthpiece and a pamphlet with the following instructions: ‘Use a glass or metal stem with mouthpiece. Don’t get cut lips. Let pipe or stem cool down before taking next hit to prevent burning or cut lips.’”

Another brochure includes pictures of how to “cook” drugs and detailed injection instructions. None of this seems to be pursuing “the treatment option” OSI insists it is interested in. Adding insult to injury, tens of thousands of these kits were handed out at U.S. taxpayer funded clinics. And now Soros admits that he would be for “clinical dosing of addicts” with heroin, as it has been used and - what Soros doesn’t tell you - failed in Swiss treatment centers.

Soros has funded legal defense for illegal immigrants, helping them to stay in the country and…stay on welfare, too. His Emma Lazarus Fund (named after the poet whose words grace the Statue of Liberty) was initiated after Soros became infuriated with a new federal law restricting food stamps and Supplemental Security Income Benefits to non-citizens. Soros called this modest roadblock in the way of the expansion of the bloated welfare state as “a clear-cut case of injustice.”

In retrospect, of course, it is far from clear-cut that any injustice was done. Welfare reform has been a huge success. More people are working. States are saving millions of dollars, and spending elsewhere, solving new problems. All of this despite the doomsday proclamations of Soros. So while we can say Soros was on the wrong side of an American policy decision that went right, we have yet to see any hard facts showing Soros’ policies have changed America for the better.

Perhaps Soros is right. Perhaps he could be wrong about things after all.

THE END BEGINS

Soros’ vocal personal involvement in the effort to defeat Bush this November has irrevocably tied him, his foundations, and the many people he works with into that cause. He has made a big gamble to regain the political influence he enjoyed with the Clinton Administration. Should Bush win, however, Soros would be marginalized even further. His profile has become too high to just write off a Democratic loss as a minor bump in Soros’ yellow brick road. That fear alone will likely encourage Soros to spend million of dollars more, desperate cash for desperate causes way outside the mainstream of American politics.

Soros has a preoccupation with the idea of acceptance. He talks openly about various humiliations and rejections all the time in interviews. Take this excerpt from an interview with Michael Kaufman about life in 1950s London, for example:

“I had thought everybody would be terribly interested in this brilliant, clever young man who had lived through so much and in reality nobody gave a damn…I was a virgin but very interested and so I tried to pick up girls on the street without success. The lack of sexual contact was painful, because sex was my main interest and all that gave me complexes that it took me a long time to shed.”

There is no reason not to believe that Soros acquired similar complexes from Reagan, Thatcher, Bush I, and all the others who failed to take him seriously. And just as he got himself a young trophy wife once he could afford one, then dumped her for a younger girlfriend,, Soros is now looking for a trophy president.

His lack of influence with George W. Bush is killing him. This is the true reason he has put himself so on the line this election cycle. The myth of his greatness comforts him when the going gets rough.

“The more I am attacked, the more I am ready to stand up for what I believe in,” Soros told uber-liberal pundit Eric Alterman. “But I am frustrated by the reach and influence of the RNC propaganda machine. They are presenting a totally distorted picture of who I am and what I stand for.”

But it is his own words that have gotten him into hot water, and it is his own actions he does not want to answer for. There is an inherent contradiction in his behavior: His ego desperately wants to take credit for being the puppet master, but he wants everyone to ignore which way he is pulling the strings. He cannot have it both ways.

Is Soros God? Well, recently, even he has determined it unlikely. On 60 Minutes, Soros explained earnestly, “if you think you’re God and you go into financial markets, you’re bound to come out broke. So the fact that I’m not broke shows that I don’t believe I’m God.”

At least we got that cleared up. Nevertheless, isn’t it a bit frightening to think that the next election could be decided by a megalomaniac who has seriously considered the possibility that he is God?

Soros went on to explain that he is a person who at times, “engages in amoral activities and the rest of the time tries to be moral.” Frankly, we hope we can all agree to expect more from those who control our destiny. We can also hope that if George W. Bush wins another  term, Soros keeps his promise to “go into some kind of monastery.”

Soros, like it or not, is a fixture of the 2004 political landscape. One can almost hear the ghost of Karl Popper lamenting: “What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king.”

*Rachel Ehrenfeld is author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed–and How to Stop It (Bonus Books, 2004); Shawn Macomber is a staff writer at The American Spectator and runs the website, www.ReturnofthePrimitive.com.




We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com