The “Open Society” and George Soros – Just what is it?

 

 

The “Open Society”

by Mustang

Henri Bergson – 1878

 

The notion of an open society was first conceived by the French philosopher Henri Bergson in 1932.  An Austrian-born British philosopher named Karl Popper developed it further after World War II.  How we should define a closed society, according to Bergson, is one closed to open-mindedness, either in law or religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Popper defined it as a society that evolves from its tribal instincts (social tradition) to a depersonalized society —one where we dispense with face-to-face transactions and one in

Karl Popper

which the government must be responsive to all our demands and operate based on transparency and flexibility.  This may almost seem like utopia.  The notion of transparency seems reasonable, but should citizens demand that every government action be revealed to the general public?  Politicians like to talk about transparency, but only when it suits members of congress personally.  To me, “Open Society” seems several steps beyond the collectivist (i.e., communist) state.

 

One further note about Popper: he believed that no one could suppress the ideas of individuality and humanitarianism once people became aware of them —so that it would be impossible for an open society to return to a closed society.

It sounds nice.

Yet, as with all really nice-sounding ideas about how we can all find ways to get along, Bergson’s and Popper’s notions can be and have been corrupted.  Today, the primary advocate of the Open Society is none other than George Soros, who founded the Open Society Foundation.

George Soros

There are clearly two sides to George Soros: that which he heralds, and that which he indeed supports.  On paper, Soros embraces a vibrant, tolerant society whose government is accountable to the people and open to their participation.

He claims a desire to strengthen the rule of law in such areas as respect for human rights, minorities, diversity of opinion, democratic elections.  He wants a civil society that helps keep government power in check.  Toward these goals, the Open Society Foundation seeks to shape public policy toward assuring greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems.  He wants to safeguard fundamental rights.  These are George Soros’ stated goals.

What George Soros actually does, however, is something quite different.  Some have claimed that Soros organized and funded as many as 206 organizations.  I’m not able to say that this is true, but he has funded more than a few organizations, either directly or through his Open Society Foundation.  Each of these have published seemingly worthwhile mission statements, but all of these are committed to goals and projects that support the progressive/neo-Marxist agenda.  The Open Society Foundation pretends to address social problems, but there is very little disclosure about the kind of society it hopes to create.  Let’s look at a few of these organizations, and then you can decide for yourself how worthwhile they are:

  • The advancement Project, seeking or organize communities of color.  One may recall that Obama was a community organizer and here we may see for the first time the original link between Obama and Soros.
  • Al Haq is an NGO that focuses on accusing Israel of human rights abuses.
  • Alliance for Justice, an activist agency that recently manufactured lies and uncorroborated accusations against Judge Bret Kavanaugh.
  • America Coming Together coordinates and organizes pro-Democrat voter mobilization efforts.  I suspect that they may have branch offices in every graveyard in America’s bluest states.
  • America’s Voice, an open borders group supporting comprehensive immigration reform, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the establishment of sanctuary cities (and states).
  • American Bridge 21st Century is a Super PAC that conducts “opposition research.”
  • New America, focusing on public policy, national security, technology, asset building, health matters, gender, energy, education, and the US economy.  Google’s[1] Executive Chairman heads this organization’s board of directors: who better to develop technology to spy on the American people?
  • Black Lives Matter, which is an international activist movement that focuses on systemic racism.
  • Media Matters for America, a propaganda arm of the Open Society Foundation.  Its mission is the comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation.  Discovering its relationship with CNN, MSNBC, and other far-left media groups would be quite interesting; my guess is that this is where FAKE NEWS comes from.
  • Center for Public Integrity, an investigative journalism organization intended to reveal abuses of power, corruption, and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions.  Since we have not seen an exposé of the overwhelming corruption of Maxine Waters, we should probably assume that these journalists only investigate members of the GOP.

The primary benefactor to each of these Soros organized or funded efforts is none other than the party of Andrew Jackson—the one political entity in the United States that embraces Marxism in all its forms and has since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson: The Democratic National Party.

Whenever Soros claims to support fundamental human rights, he’s speaking about open borders —which no conservative in his right mind can support while remaining an American traditionalist.  Soros also claims to support the idea that all societies should be free to participate fully in civic, economic, and cultural life —unless one happens to belong to the other party, in which case the so-called Anti-FA thugs (black or brown shirts) show up to intimidate you into sitting down and shutting up.

Soros claims as a goal to hold those in power accountable for their actions —unless they are dyed-in-the-wool Democratic fascists who seek to increase the size of government and its control over the people, through legislation, taxation, and anti-American amendments to the United States Constitution (and its Amendments).

Hence, Soros’ statement that his Open Society Foundation seeks to respond quickly and flexibly to the most critical threats to an Open Society.  This may explain why people appeared at Tucker Carlson’s house after dark and tried to batter down his front door, terrorizing his wife.

My conclusion is that George Soros’ Open Society Foundation is fake.  Bergson and Popper may have created these ideas under the noblest of motivations, which I believe are unnecessary in American society, but it has been hijacked by communists for their own purposes.  One cannot help but notice how the missions and values of the Soros organizations are constructed in such a way as to form the greatest appeal to the young and under-educated: identity politics is now the primary mantra of the Democratic Party and this is no mere coincidence.

Advertisements

New Acting Attorney General Whitaker: ‘I would indict Hillary Clinton’

 

Yes, this should put a tingle in Hillary. There is a new sheriff in town. Big Bad John in the name of Matthew Whitaker who is taking over as Acting Attorney General for Jeff Sessions. Thanks Jeff for moving on. He is of the opinion that Hillary should be charged and penned such an op-ed several years ago.

 

WASHINGTON – Matthew Whitaker, who was named interim attorney general Wednesday after Jeff Sessions was fired, argued two years ago that Hillary Clinton should have been criminally charged.

In an opinion piece for USA TODAY, Whitaker disagreed with then-FBI Director James Comey that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton for handling classified documents as secretary of State on a private email server.

“I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” wrote Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney.

He penned the piece while serving as executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a conservative watchdog group.

Read the op-ed piece:

Meanwhile Comey must be sweating bullets just hoping that the new Democrat controlled House will save his sorry butt. Eric is in panic mode as well.

Encore time for President Donald Trump! Vote Vote Vote!

 

This is why we are great again! Vote, Vote, Vote.. This is the big day. Let’s have an encore with a big night tonight counting all of those Red Votes. Pass the video along. A reminder of just who Trump is and what he stands for.

 

Remember this one? Let’s give the special snowflakes an encore.

Was the Federal Government involved in Whitey Bulger’s murder?

 

Why was a feeble wheel chair bound 89-year-old Whitey Bulger moved from Florida to a notorious maximum security prison? Segregated since he was convicted, he is immediately put into general population upon his arrival at Hazelton Federal Prison. Murdered within a day. Murdered before he was even processed? This story has a lot more to be troubled by, and it’s not that it was pay back from a fellow gangster for revenge. We will learn that he was wheeled to an area without cameras and brutally murdered. We will learn that he may have been ready to testify and sing, involving possibly high level FBI officials in the informants program.The informants program. Sound vaguely familiar?.

Here we go:

Reports that Boston crime boss James “Whitey” Bulger had been murdered hours after being transferred to a federal maximum security prison in West Virginia shocked the public on Tuesday, and immediately raised questions about the circumstances surrounding his death.

How was the inmate, who was reportedly in ill-health, murdered so quickly after arriving in the new prison? And how was it that guards weren’t monitoring such a high-profile inmate, particularly since it came out in his 2013 trial that he worked with the FBI for years ratting out rival mobsters to help consolidate his power in the Boston underworld?

While the federal government hasn’t released any more details about Bulger’s death, the Daily Mail and TMZ have managed to dig up some information that, if accurate, could indicate a motive for what may have been a killing tacitly sanctioned by senior law enforcement officials. According to the Mail, Bulger, who was confined to a wheelchair at the time of his death, had been talking about outing people in the upper echelons of the FBI’s informant program.

The suspicious circumstances of Bulger’s death would suggest that there’s more to the story than a routine killing. For one, Bulger was seemingly arbitrarily transferred to the Hazelton facility in West Virginia, which had been the site of three other inmate killings over the past year. Sources also said Bulger hadn’t even been processed when he was killed. So, apparently, somebody in the prison population had been tipped off that he was coming. When he arrived, Bulger was mixed in with the general population, leaving him vulnerable.

The Massachusetts Democrat last year introduced the Confidential Informant Accountability Act – which calls for congressional oversight into the selection and use of confidential informants. It’s possible that Bulger was set to open up to someone on Lynch’s team with claims of abuses in the program.

Bulger’s lawyer, for one, blasted the Bureau of Prisons in a statement, accusing it of unilaterally converting Bulger’s life sentence into the death penalty. More at

Zero Hedge

Author Michele McPhee discusses the death of notorious criminal James ‘Whitey’ Bulger shortly after his prison transfer and what her sources are saying about the killing.

Kashoggi – Have you had enough of it?

 

International Relations

The American Press, Politicians, and Fairness

By Mustang

Air Force officials announced the next chapter in a partnership with the Royal Saudi Air Force

Have you had enough?  I have.  It is time for news reporting, harping, and commentary as it relates to the murder of Jamal Kashoggi to end.  Without making any judgment about Kashoggi as a person, how is his demise at the hands of the Saudi government any business of the United States —particularly since the alleged crime was committed in Turkey, within the Saudi Embassy, and not within any US territory or facility?

I am no fan of the Saudis (or any other Middle Eastern cesspool), but I have to wonder if our idiot journalists and equally foolish politicians are aware that every Islamic culture in the world is barbaric.

These are people who continue living in the 7th Century.  Now then, after twenty or more years of watching (or being aware of) the beheading of non-Moslems and/or the death by hanging of homosexuals, should anyone on the planet be surprised to learn that Saudi thugs have murdered a dissident and then dismantled his body to hide the murder?  Are we so naïve to imagine that we can hold the Saudis or any other Islamist society to a higher (Judeo-Christian) standard —or more to the point, that the Saudis even care what we think?  Well, in my view, anyone who thinks that we can hold a barbaric culture to a higher standard is unrealistic and immature.

It is true that the Kashoggi murder was outrageous —but then, many behaviors within the cloak of Islamism are.

It is not as if horrible things never happen within our own borders.  Discounting leftists, we should expect that nearly every American will agree that Kate Steinle’s murder was a tragedy of epic proportions.  We hated what happened, even though not everyone agreed that justice was served or that José Inez García Zárate (AKA Juan Francisco López-Sánchez) received a correct sentence —but the government and defendant had their day in court.  The case of Kate Steinle was an internal matter, appropriately addressed within the body of American jurisprudence, none of which is the business of foreign press, commentators, or half-baked politicians —and had any of these interests demanded of US authorities an accounting of the Steinle murder, I daresay that the American people would have been livid— and rightly so.

Whatever the events involving Kashoggi in Turkey, this is a matter between the Turks and Saudis.  If the Saudis have in fact arrested those responsible for the murder, then it is up to them to seek a just resolution —and it is none of America’s business.  It is time to let it go …

Khashoggi? ‘Where Was This Concern for Our Ambassador Brutally Murdered in Benghazi?’ says Limbaugh

 

The Washington Post sure wasn’t concerned about what happened to our Ambassador Stevens and the three other men who fought bravely to the death on a rooftop in Benghazi. Reported at the time were that other American individuals were injured and flown to Bagram Air Base in Germany. Forced to sign a non-disclosure as to what happened, silencing them forever. Never questioned. Little is known about those who survived the Benghazi attack.

The State Department confirmed in March, after multiple inquiries by Fox News, that a total of three diplomatic security agents, as well as a State Department contractor, were among the Americans injured during the terrorist assault which killed the two former SEALs, Ambassador Chris Stevens, and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  Here

Now the WP has their knickers in a knot over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi but of course, one of their own. Really? The bio if this fellow Khashoggi given by Rush at the end clip.

Here is a link that Limbaugh mentioned for the Bio on Khashoggi

The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power. This is not just wrong, but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable. Full story over at the Spectator

 

Rush Limbaugh had a few choice words on the disparity of the two stories which I will get to in a minute.

But first let’s think about what we have been up to, or what we might know that the CIA or others have done in our name. This from the CIA gov site.

 

THE CIA’S WORLDWIDE KILL SQUADS[PDF]

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84-00499R001000080001-7.pdf

 

The we have

FORMER CIA AGENT SAYS AGENCY PROMOTING WAR

 

This gives a good overview:

The CIA has a long history of helping to kill leaders around the world …

 

 

Last let us not forget this one from Hillary Clinton and her handiwork over Benghazi way that gets us back to the point of the post:

 

 

 

But then again, what difference did it make?

 

Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh compared the situation involving journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was allegedly brutally killed at a Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey, to that of the tragedy of September 11, 2012 at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

 

Here goes a part of the Rushbo tape that I managed to find. Transcript below.

Listen to it at Breitbart:  HERE

My comment:

So now we are going to blow up our relationship because the Saudi Prince was attempting to westernize? So this Muslim Brotherhood fellow by the name of Khashoggi is a turncoat and anti Westernization? And with this power struggle let’s destabilize the Middle East and our economy. Was he really that dumb to think he could saw the guy up in the consulate and no one would know that video would show the guy went in and didn’t come out? Yes, I know, the Saudis export terrorism. Just like so many other nasty dictators that we deal with. Just maybe he is different. Not a crazy man that we now will attempt to overthrow or kill which is more likely.

Starting to sound a bit like the Shah of Iran that we so easily dispensed with?

 

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy RushLimbaugh.com):

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a question. I continue to get emails about the so-called Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. My question is a really rather simple one: Where was this concern for our ambassador and three other men brutally murdered in Benghazi? Somebody explain that to me? You realize how much attention is being paid to what… Has it been confirmed….? Did something happen since this program began?

Has it been confirmed that Khashoggi was murdered by the 15 hit men from Saudi Arabia? Has it been confirmed? It’s not confirmed? So it’s still likely or thought to be… And the story is that it took him seven minutes to die, that they dismembered him alive, at some point gave him drugs to knock him out, and then they listened to music while they did all of this. And of course until I blew up the theory that the Apple Watch contained the evidence, they were gonna try to make it look like proof existed in the form of audio recordings.

Khashoggi knew what was in store for him and he had finagled his Apple Watch to record the stuff somehow on his iPhone. That is very, very unlikely because of it being technologically impossible, barring just only two exceptions. I would have a tough time believing Khashoggi even knew to do or how to do. But all of this concern. And remember Hillary Clinton, when repeated questions were asked about how in the world four Americans were allowed to be murdered in Benghazi, with no assistance, and Hillary Clinton’s reaction?

(paraphrased) “What difference does it make now?” she said in frustration. Does anybody see a disparity here in proportion? Now, of course, we all understand why. The Democrats seriously believe they have a way of blaming Donald Trump for this. CNN all afternoon has tried to make it look like that Trump knows the Saudis did it and is trying to provide them cover. That’s… It’s despicable! The graphics that they are using to try to make that case. But I think there’s a lot proportionality missing here. Again, I don’t think the media realizes how obvious their subterfuge is to people now.

On Tuesday’s program Rush gives the background of Khashoggi that you won’t hear the MSM tell you about. It starts at about 58:00. A Muslim Brotherhood man opposed to the Westernization underway in Saudi Arabia.

We are the good guys. We don’t slice and dice. Bravo.

 

 

Is America in the Twilight Zone?

 

By Mustang

In his book How America Lost Its Mind, Kurt Andersen assures us that we Americans “… have passed through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.  America has mutated into Fantasyland.”

He continues …

“Each of us is on a spectrum somewhere between the poles of rational and irrational. We all have hunches we can’t prove and superstitions that make no sense. Some of my best friends are very religious, and others believe in dubious conspiracy theories.  What’s problematic is going overboard —letting the subjective entirely override the objective; thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings are just as true as facts.

Hmmm.  So, with slight modification from its original airing, the lead-in to the popular television show Twilight Zone might look like this today …

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between reality and fantasy, between science and superstition, and it lies between man’s manic depression and the summit of his inadequate knowledge.  This is the dimension of moral relativism; it is an area which we call America’s Twilight Zone.

Andersen offers an interesting proposition, but then he falls into the rabbit hole himself.  The problem, as he sees it, is that “we’re Americans.”  We can’t help ourselves.  You see, our colonial-period adoption of enlightened ideas has led us to an absurd society where people are allowed to believe whatever they want —no matter how outlandish those beliefs are.  And, because most of us believe in God, we’ve come to think of ourselves as God’s chosen people; we’ve been called upon to help create a customized utopia —a place where we can believe epic dreams and fantasies; where we can indulge ourselves in magical thinking.  Andersen argues that Americans are prone to believe silly ideas because we’ve evolved into a mindless society.

Yet, if we were to agree that our society is unable to make a distinction between fact and opinion, or if our Americans do tend to believe the most outlandish claims found on the internet, or texted to them on an iPhone, then we ought to develop some curiosity about how we arrived in bizarre world, but we do not make much headway in our investigation if we confine our investigation to the enlightenment period.  There was certainly nothing inexplicable about our founding fathers.

It is true that there exists on the internet dozens —maybe even hundreds or thousands— of websites that offer nothing but spoofed events, unbalanced opinions presented as factual news, poorly crafted conspiracy theories, character assassinations, and blatant lies about things that might have happened 35 or 40 years ago, but which lack any corroboration.  And, in spite of what we all know about these hoax sites, people believe them anyway.  Why?

Perhaps we should begin our examination with our public education system —which I believe is (with first-hand knowledge) a misnomer for what is actually going on in our schools.  It isn’t learning that being poured into our children’s brains: it’s brain-washing —with toxic bleach.

America’s public schools, grades K through 12 are tax-payer-funded incubators where dedicated Marxist teachers (hereafter referred to as educationalists) use instruction in the social sciences, English literature, and geography to indoctrinate students in cultural collectivism.  It is a place where young people are taught to “group think,” and where at a very early age they are admonished never to challenge anything their teachers tell them.  Like all good communist systems, the penalty for challenging an educationalist is shouting, public ridicule, and labeling challengers as intolerant racist trouble-makers.

Public funded brain-washing centers are where our children are introduced to moral relativism.  Considering philosophical points of view is fine —if we are talking about a classroom filled with thirty-somethings, but we are talking about adolescents and teenagers whose brains, according to developmental psychologists, will not be fully formed until they reach their mid-twenties.  The brain-washing of under-developed persons, who because of their inexperience are incapable of thinking in the abstract is not just objectionable —it’s downright disgusting.  Teachers, whom we trust (and pay nice salaries to) to provide our children with essential learning in public schools, are abusing under-developed children for their own political purposes.

Where is the public outcry?

Kurt Andersen claims that Americans suffer from national paranoia.  For example, we are afraid of the so-called deep state.  But if Americans are worried about such things, is it really paranoia?  The clinical definition of paranoia is that someone imagines that someone or something is out to harm them.

On the other hand, when we are able to detect the existence of affiliated policies and programs that are actually designed to destroy our society, or harm us professionally, personally, or physically, then we aren’t paranoid —and we should recall that the National Security Agency is actually monitoring our telephone conversations, people are being arrested on warrants issued by secret courts on the sole affirmations of government investigators, dossiers are actually being conspiratorially manufactured against political rivals, nuclear material really is being sold under the table to foreign entities, and people who are guilty of breaching national security are actually being let off the hook simply because they are part of the political elite.

We do not imagine that there are two sets of laws in this country —there really are: those that apply to you and me … and those that pertain to members of the privileged class.  To my way of thinking, these are not examples of paranoia; there are plenty of reasons for America’s uncertainty about its future.

Awful things are going on in our country today, and much of this is political.  While I have disdain for America’s political system, one party in particular goes out of its way to shower Americans with false and misleading information.  I think it was Vladimir Lenin who once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes a verifiable truth.

A reasonably thoughtful person should conclude that there is a purpose to inculcating our children with moral and cultural relativism, for flooding our society with false and misleading information: to fool and manipulate the not-so-bright among us (the beneficiaries of brain-washing centers).  This purpose is to strengthen a Marxist agenda, which includes duping voters into supporting closet Marxists for political office.

Again, I wonder … where is the public outcry?

%d bloggers like this: