YESTERDAY, in response to the Financial Times’s naming of George Soros as their Person of the Year, I wrote about the first part of his book, Soros on Soros, in which he emerges as amoral, lacking in empathy and having a messianic complex.
In the densely written second part of the book, Soros expands on his philosophy of open society and explains how his Open Society Foundations (OSF) is a development of this theory. Though he describes the aim of OSF as democratic, the manifestation of its work in 140 countries, particularly in US and Europe, is profoundly undemocratic. This is the paradox at the centre of the book.
Most of Soros’s ideas for ‘open society’ are to be found in the appendix, which should be read before delving into part two. His writings here range from the esoteric to pure guff. But what Soros does make clear is that societies can be influenced by his theories and that OSF is the vehicle through which he has inflicted his vision on much of the world.
His ‘open society’ is a confusing and disturbing thesis. It is one of chaos and conflict, not the peaceful society he claims it to be. Its main objective is to create the dissent which will lead to his idea of democracy. Key to this is Soros’s obsession with the destruction of the nation-state. He believes this to be the biggest obstacle to forming ‘open society’. But far from achieving democracy, his ‘dissent’ initiatives have come to subvert it, to destabilise society and undermine the will of the people. The American social and political commentator, Mark Levin, has explained how, in the name of ‘human rights‘, OSF works to weaken national states. Soros is disturbingly proud of causing this destruction as the means to his open society end.
This example of Soros’s megalomania is one of many in this part of the book. He admits once again to having ‘messianic fantasies’ of ‘doing good and fighting evil’. His self-image is grandiose and bizarre. He claims, too, that he entered the markets in the countries where he had previously established OSF only to show that he could ‘descend from Mount Olympus and become a flesh and blood human being’ (pg 143). Soros, and his supporters, commend him as the saviour of Eastern Europe yet neglect to mention his speculative forays in 1998 in which he smashed the Russian rouble and damaged Hungary’s economy in turn.
Worryingly Soros alludes to, but never elaborates on, various collaborations made with undemocratic regimes to enable him operate his foundations.
Melanie Phillips and Mark Levin are far from his only critics. Another disturbing reality of Soros’s open society ‘vision’ and its negative impact is described by Mike Gonzales, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation:
‘His vision has little or no place for national government, the family, God.’
There is no indication of self-deprecation or self-doubt in the book. Soros is not joking when says he is ‘godlike’. A messianic complex like his is made dangerous when the person suffering from this affliction has the billions at hand to shape the world in his image. Since 1984 Soros has donated more than £23.5billion to OSF.
Soros claims that open society is diametrically opposed to a communist closed society. But what becomes increasingly clear with further reading is that despite Soros’s setting up foundations to help former USSR states transform from socialism to democracy he actually espouses a similar ideology to socialism – namely that open society ‘requires people to make sacrifices for the common good’ (pg 135).
He claims open society offers high levels of social mobility and the freedom to choose practices such as ‘euthanasia, genetic engineering and brainwashing’. But a sinister practice such as brainwashing takes away freedom of choice. His theory chillingly advocates replacing friends, neighbours and spouses if another choice is superior. He lauds democracy and science as a necessary part of his open society philosophy. Yet his foundations actively work to subvert democracy, like his attempt to delegitimise Brexit via his funding of Best for Britain, the organisation founded by Gina Miller. OSF also fund anti-science movements such as transgenderism.
Soros repeatedly claims that nationalism is the greatest threat to Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the USSR. But his funding of uncontrolled immigration has helped cause a surge in the very nationalism that he abhors. The same countries in Eastern Europe that he worked so hard to save from that other form of nationalism, communism, are hardening their national identity and closing their borders in response to uncontrolled immigration. Soros’s constant delegitimisation of patriotism in his messianic pursuit of the destruction of the nation-state is backfiring.
He opposes religious dogma because it is a component of nationalism. Yet he is funding millions of migrants who come from cultures perpetuating an anti-Semitic and fundamentalist extreme view of Islam. So why is Soros channelling so much of his money into criticising Western governments and destabilising the West? Why is it not being channelled to help those in countries which caused the migrant crisis in the first place, with their endless wars, famines and corrupt regimes?
These are troubling paradoxes that pervade his book and his life. They are also examples of the disruption caused by the practical implementation of his contradictory open society theory. Perhaps Soros doesn’t care about the consequences for the West as long as his goal of destroying national borders and his utopia of open society is achieved.
Seemingly some of his positions, as on the EU and the euro, have altered over the years. If he can’t abide nationalism why has he become such a cheerleader for the EU, given its ambition to turn Europe into the United States of Europe, with a new European identity embedded in nationalism?
It is still a national identity, no matter how it is dressed up. Instead of national identity being Greek or German the citizen will identify as part of the European Union. A border is a still a border regardless whether it separates small countries from each or entire continents. Soros’s plan for creating a no-border open society, free of nationalism, is contradictory. It can’t work.
Despite his megalomaniac claims that he alone understands how the world operates, Soros lacks any understanding of human nature – that humans are essentially tribal beings who crave boundaries of some sort which has manifested in the creation of the nation-state, the ultimate protective boundary for democracy. This is why his theory of open society is just that – it will never appeal to most and it is impossible to implement practically.
It’s difficult to grasp what Soros thinks on numerous issues because he is so manifestly contradictory. He claims he doesn’t get involved in politics yet he has heavily funded the US Democratic Party. Moreover OSF happily supports organisations like the London based Migrants Network which recently held a symposium devoted to bashing the British government.
What makes Soros dangerous is that he is not changing his mind on what to have for breakfast but on major decisions. He is an individual with a rare ability to inflict his damaged ideas, created in his damaged mind, on millions of his fellow human beings and usually to their detriment; and the world, seemingly, his plaything.
In Part Three I discuss more of Soros’s strange philosophy and show how his OSF harms Jews and Israel.