Review of George Soros book The Age of Fallibility by Roberto Diego

I am writing this review of George Soros’ book “The Age of Fallibility” because I want to make the world a better place. Over the last few years, I have heard and read much about George Soros, a Hungarian born immigrant to the United States, considered a pariah by many Republicans and a savior by many Democrats. Mr. Soros has inserted himself into our political processes by contributing large amounts of money to a number of political organizations whose primary goals have been to help Democrats get elected. In his book, The Age of Fallibility - Consequences of the War on Terror, Mr. Soros attempts to inform the American public about his desire to make the world a better place; or so he says.

Certainly making the world a better place is a laudable goal, and the fact that Mr. Soros is willing to expend his huge fortune toward this goal is wonderful. Right? Well, the term "making the world a better place" is relative. One could say that Hitler was trying to make the world a better place from his own demented perspective. Or Marx, Engels, Kant and even Pol Pot. One has to ask the question: better for whom, George Soros, his investors, the Democrats or American citizens? In addition, one has to ask Mr. Soros what is a better world in his opinion.

At the beginning of the book, Mr. Soros takes on the fact that he is considered a criminal by some; and he seeks to dispel that idea by claiming innocence of doing anything to affect the breaking of the Bank of England of which he has been charged by many of his detractors. Mr. Soros’ defense is that he does not have the kind of economic power needed to break the Bank of England. Let’s see what others have to say about Mr. Soros’ activities regarding these charges.

“Mr Soros, who operates one of the world's biggest private investment funds, is famous for having made $1bn by betting on the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1992.”[1] Gocurrency.com refers to “the extreme devaluation of the pound caused by George Soros, and which earned Soros the moniker "the man who broke the Bank of England." The Bank of England had been artificially maintaining their exchange rate with the Deutschmark despite the fact that the pound was overvalued. They did this because they were members of Europe's exchange rate mechanism ("ERM"), whose goal was to maintain a tight trading band between the many European countries' exchange rates. However, as the U.K's economy worsened and Germany's improved, the Pound became overvalued and the BOE was forced to intercede in order to maintain the rate. Soros and many other investors took advantage of intervention and placed enormous selling pressure on the Pound and the Bank of England was forced to accept a devalued Pound, earning Soros billions. As a result of 'Black Wednesday', the United Kingdom was promptly kicked out of the ERM, ultimately leading to the current system of a floating currency and an inflation target set by the government for the bank to meet by influencing interest rates.”[2]

Apologists say that Soros is just another investor who has found a way to speculate successfully on currency exchange bubbles. Speculation, they say, is a form of investing that requires specific skills such as recognizing which currencies are going up relative to other currencies. It involves analyzing all of the relevant economic factors that influence currency value fluctuations. It is not uncommon for a currency speculator to move from one currency to another in order to ensure that his money is placed where it will earn the largest yields. Indeed, one of the key factors that influences currency values are the machinations of governments. In my view, whenever government seeks to manipulate the market and create a situation where investors think that a currency is stronger than it really is, you have an immoral government trying to artificially maintain the value of the currency. One could say that these governments deserve what they get if an astute investor recognizes the vulnerability of the currency and then rightly precipitates flight from it.

Perhaps Mr. Soros is not such a bad guy. Can we learn from him, like we learn from other successful men? Is he a clear thinker who uses facts and sound economic principles in order to decide on investments or is he looking for the quick buck, a short cut to wealth? And since we know that Mr. Soros is heavily involved in philanthropy and politics, what does his philosophy of life teach us about the rightness of his activities? For instance, if Al Capone were to write a book claiming his philosophy of life is based on the idea that men are fallible would one admire the man for it? Soros says in his book, “I have developed a coherent and self-consistent view of the world based on the twin principles of reflexivity and fallibility. It is neither perfect nor complete, yet it has taken me a long way in understanding reality and participating in it. It has guided me both in the financial markets and in my philanthropy.”

If you are not familiar with the terms reflexivity and fallibility, you may not be aware that they are concepts developed by Soros’ philosophical mentor Karl Popper who attempted to solve the “problem” of induction. What is relevant about both Popper and Soros is that Popper accepted virtually all of David Hume's views about necessity and the "inability" of man to understand reality. Hume's view was that there are no valid inferences in the jump from observed cases to unobserved cases. With this view, Hume successfully invalidated observation as a source of knowledge. Popper held that we are basically fallible because we cannot understand all of reality. In effect, Popper was a skeptic about human understanding (as was Hume) and he laid the foundation for an approach to induction that did nothing to advance induction or the acquisition of knowledge. Where scientists were discovering whole areas of new knowledge and understanding, Popper, during his time, was saying that we could only find partial solutions. While businessmen were building whole industries and highly innovative inventions that revolutionized the world and the quality of life, Popper was saying that we could only take baby steps in knowledge.

Indeed, Popper corrupts induction by calling it an incomplete process of sorts; by invoking the idea that people who claim they know ultimate truths tend to devise invalid stratagems to limit questioning of their accepted knowledge. This amounts to the assertion that all knowledge is a self-refuting rationalization and therefore it is invalid merely because it claims to be knowledge. "Ultimate truth" for Popper is the problem. In addition, Popper offers a solution by asserting that induction and knowledge progress by means of "bold leaps," boldness being considered the standard that identifies and opens the door to the next level of imperfect knowledge. By invoking boldness as a standard for evaluating knowledge, Popper offers a stratagem that is self-refuting. That man is fallible must certainly also apply to Popper and his ideas as well. Indeed, they must also apply to Hume, Kant and even George Soros. There is no escape from fallibility for Popper because his ideas, just like everyone else’s, cannot lead to “perfect” knowledge on their own terms. Popper should never be someone’s mentor.

Soros writes “…Popper’s Book, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ struck me with the force of revelation and prompted me to explore the author’s philosophy. He argued that the Nazi and Communist ideologies have something in common; they both claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond human reach, both ideologies had to be based on a biased and distorted interpretation of reality; consequently, they could be imposed on society only by the use of repressive methods. He (Popper) juxtaposed a different principle of social organization that is based on the recognition that claims to the ultimate truth cannot be validated. Popper called this principle “open society,” and he held it out as preferable to a definitive design.”[3]

Soros is saying that he views any “defined” society as inherently imperfect because it presumes to do the impossible which is to be based upon an ultimate truth. An “open society” on the other hand is based upon the idea that man cannot really know anything with any certainty and therefore, because it accepts this “truth” it is the more proper society. Apparently, Soros did not notice that saying there is no ultimate truth is a statement of ultimate truth. Yet, he was so struck by the idea that he decided to build his life and business around it. The contradiction didn't stop him.

Since induction, for Popper, is reputed by misguided thinkers to lead to real truth, and since for Popper and Soros, real truth is not real but incomplete, an open society is one that accepts this unfortunate fact. Consider what this means in practice: If I say that something is true, for instance, that metal is hard, my efforts to prove this, my bold leap, is imperfect, because we can’t really know that metal is hard according to Hume who is irrefutable. We think it is hard, we operate on that premise, and when we feel the metal, it feels hard according to our definition of “hard,” but we cannot be sure because there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, there is no way we can verify it by connecting our minds to reality. We are not able to access such a reality. All we have is testing; without standard, without goal, without purpose, just testing of something, somewhere – or more precisely, testing of nothing nowhere. If you tell me that you disagree; that according to your bold leap, metal is, in fact, soft; that your definition of metal, which involves a more precise knowledge than mine, different questions that lead to different answers, your assertion that metal is soft is just as good, and just as correct, or just as incorrect in an open society. So when you decide to bash me over the head with a metal axe, you are testing your bold new hypothesis. But this is not repression of me because you are testing something that is connected to nothing that we know. This is more than moral equivalence; this is epistemological equivalence of anything that can possibly be thought. And, for the record, it leads to the same result as the repressive dictatorships that Popper and Soros deride. In fact, the criticism of dictatorship under Popper and Soros is so convoluted, so imperfect, that those that follow Soros into the future, will not be able to realize that a con is being perpetrated upon them. Consider what is lost here; any society that stands on firm principles such as individual rights and the pursuit of happiness is considered to be based on illusory ultimate truths. If communism is false, so is individual rights by this view.

The problem for Soros and Popper is that an open society cannot be defined because they insist that it be open. It is something that stands for nothing since only bold leaps that have yet to be tested can be brought forward. A bold leap is merely an out-of-context, unprincipled wild guess that is intended to replace such concepts as valid generalizations and principles. For Soros and his followers, we should favor instead a bold leap such as universal medical coverage or soaking the rich. When standards of knowledge are considered unknowable, they lead to no knowledge. Bring in a principle such as individual rights and you have an old idea that is based upon supposedly “perfect” knowledge that has been discredited because we can’t rely on “perfect” knowledge. So anything that is considered by past thinking to be “true;” is untrue; and anything that is out-of-context, whimsical and un-provable is testable in an open society. This is a regression to pre-conceptual man, to whim worship, to making any demand, any assertion, any statement no matter how out of context or stupid. Your idea is just as good as mine and mine, if it is based on what I consider to be sound reasoning, is invalid by the mere assertion of it. And (Soros and Popper missed this) it is a regression to dictatorship. This is the world of Hume and Popper and Soros; this is the world of today. For proof, watch any movie, listen to any politician or watch any news cast and you will see that the operating principle of our time is precisely this: there are no values, no truths, no principles and no facts. There is only opinion and opinion, no matter how irrational, is to be placed upon a pedestal. And this is presented as wisdom, as advanced knowledge. So much for Hume's and Popper's solving the problem of induction.

Notice that for Soros the “different principle” he mentions is not that ultimate truth can be validated; or that all truths can be validated within their relative contexts, it assumes that because of the horrors of communism and fascism, the idea of ultimate truth is wrong because it is asserted as “ultimate” or “perfect.” By this view, real truth is not possible. Consider the peculiar position in which such an idea puts a man. First, it assumes that the claim to ultimate truth offered by these corrupt social systems need not be challenged; that the ideas of communism and fascism (based on forced altruism) are not to be analyzed and/or over turned. In other words, if ultimate truth exists, we can never know it. When Soros and his followers offer programs that are nothing more than forced altruism, the hallmark of dictatorship, they are not considered to be dictatorial because we have lost the connection between knowledge, reality and thinking. Anything goes and anything that is open is therefore testable.

It is accepted by most philosophers that David Hume has “shown” that it was impossible for man to possess knowledge of the real world because, in his analysis, ideas were imperfect mirrors of concretes accessed by human sensation; for Hume man cannot know with any certainty that any of his ideas are “true”. We are left only with what seems to work today, with such concepts as probability; and what works today may not work tomorrow. Hume, and the skeptics, vandalized human thinking by saying to man, in essence, don’t be so naïve as to think that thinking and certainty are possible. You have to be practical and just go beyond the idea of knowledge. Yes, this is considered practical.

In fact, Popper’s bold leaps, his solution to the problem of induction, are the intellectual equivalents of jumping off of a cliff without knowing where one will land. Being “bold” is hardly an answer to Hume’s premise about man’s inability to understand reality. It is, in effect, an endorsement of the idea that knowledge of reality is impossible. The only thing that matters for Popper is boldness; which means, again, that it is irrelevant whether one’s ideas are true. For instance, Galileo, when he decided that Jupiter had moons, was being bold because he challenged Christian authority and that was more important than the truth (indeed, Popper’s idea of boldness is also an indictment of itself).

Hume began his quest as an empiricist who sought to examine the issues that relate to how man can develop certainty in evaluating reality. Hume is considered to be unrelenting in identifying the “empirical” nature of a number of key philosophic concepts and he provided the foundation for critiquing the views of other philosophers. One such issue is called “necessity.” Necessity is considered to be the connection between cause and effect. Hume asserted that we could not see necessity and because so we could not prove that necessity actually occurred. Hume sought an impenetrable science that would rid the world of superstition and establish knowledge on a foundation that could be counted upon. He provided us with doubt as the foundation of science and inquiry.

For Hume, there is no connection between the mind and what it perceives. In other words, there is no source of human knowledge; there is no human knowledge. The empiricist joins with the rationalist. Hume:

“We must submit to this fatigue in order to live at ease ever after: And must cultivate true metaphysics with some care in order to destroy the false and adulterate….Accurate and just reasoning is the only catholic remedy, fitted for all persons and all dispositions; and is alone able to subvert that abstruse philosophy and metaphysical jargon, which, being mixed up with popular superstition, renders it in a manner impenetrable to careless reasoners, and gives it the air of science and wisdom.

It is remarkable concerning the operations of the mind that, though most intimately preset to us, yet, whenever they become the object of reflection, they seem involved in obscurity; nor can the eye readily find those lines and boundaries, which discriminate and distinguish them. The objects are too fine to remain long in the same aspect or situation; and must be apprehended in an instant, by a superior penetration, derived from nature, and improved by habit and reflexion. It becomes, therefore, no inconsiderable part of science barely to know the different operations of the mind, to separate them from each other, to class them under their proper heads, and to correct all that seeming disorder, in which they are involved….And if we can go no father than this mental geography, or delineation of the distinct parts and powers of the mind, it is at least a satisfaction to go so far; and the more obvious this science may appear (and it is by no means obvious) the more contemptible still must the ignorance of it be esteemed, in all pretenders to learning and philosophy…”[4]

“Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and often he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination.

These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the sense, but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment…The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensations.”[5]

What we have in Hume’s view is a failure to recognize that sensations and imagination are nothing more than different states of consciousness. Though sensations and imagination can be evaluated in relation to each other, such an evaluation can yield little in terms of understanding the value of thinking and the use of knowledge since they are merely elements of the process of thinking, not alternatives to one another. One must wonder, what is the point of Mr. Hume’s distinction regarding ideas except that he wants to believe there is a problem in man’s thinking; a problem that is supposed to suggest something wrong with man’s ability to think. For instance, perception is a stage of consciousness that includes a range of elements that move from sensation to perception to identification and conceptualization to generalizations to theories and principles. This is the process of cognition and it is the foundation of a proper induction. There is no reason to claim that one or any of the elements along this continuum is inferior to the other. With a proper conceptual process, man’s sensations can correctly reflect his generalizations. This makes Hume’s division of sensations and imagination nothing more than a false alternative. To say that sensation is superior to recollection is merely a deceiving way for Hume to say that immediate experience is superior to thinking and therefore thinking has no value. This moves people then to disregard the value and importance of thinking and to concentrate more closely on a false premise that all we can be certain of are sensations. Enter skepticism and intellectual disintegration. Enter moral equivalence and political repression. Whenever you destroy the possibility of thinking, you not only destroy thought, you also destroy the possibility of truth.

Hume starts with the premise that there is something wrong with the product of human thinking that makes it inferior, and he posits that inferiority to be the result of some sort of inefficacy of human memory. He says sensations are immediate, felt strongly, felt as real, but our recollection of them, our thinking, is fuzzy and this must be why people disagree, why they are contradictory and ignorant in the use of their minds. A proper perspective on human understanding does more than what Hume posited; it seeks to find out, by means of induction, just what it is that man does when he thinks, what are the proper methods of thinking that yield truthful, accurate statements and generalizations – not what is wrong with man’s mind that creates disagreement and ignorance.

Indeed, a proper investigation would yield a different “empirical” truth and that is, as I have said, that consciousness is engaged by man through a continuum that first processes sensations; and at each stage of that continuum, man must follow certain rules of thinking that will make it possible for him to develop truth, understanding and certainty. Had Hume been truly interested in learning why men are contradictory, he would have engaged in a scientific analysis of this issue. Had he done so, he would have learned that sensations lead to perception, perception leads to the discovery of entities and these entities must be conceptualized correctly according to essential characteristics, so that man develops correct concepts, logical thinking, principles and truth.

Instead, Hume starts with the inability of man to think and then proceeds to “prove” his thesis in what can only be considered one of the most monumental examples of circular reasoning on record. Indeed, Popper, who agreed with him, should have called Hume’s ideas reflexive and self-fulfilling. Nevertheless, Hume makes possible the seed that eventually leads to Popper’s and Soros’ development of the terms fallibility and reflexivity. These terms, likewise, are based on the idea that man can’t understand reality, that his sensations are disorganized and that his mind is always going to see things wrongly. Like Hume, Popper and Soros build their basic philosophies around the mistaken belief that man is incapable of understanding reality. Popper develops, from this base, the ideas of “probability,” fallibility, bold leaps and reflexivity while Soros attempts to use this base to build an investment philosophy that looks only for imperfect markets populated by ignorant people.

What is the significance of basing one’s philosophy of life on the inherent fallibility of men? What kind of starting point does that represent for an intelligent individual? Essentially, Hume, Popper and Soros all sell short on man’s mind. They consider that man is ignorant, imperfect and incapable of understanding reality. This is nothing more than a deep cynicism about man. It is a view of man that says one should only look for fallibility and vulnerability and that one should only operate upon that premise. It is a gangster’s perspective, one that says, since man is a sinner, the only way to succeed is to sell him his sins and exploit his ignorance. It does not say we should educate man, lift him up, teach him how to think and how to make correct decisions; it says man cannot know, cannot act rationally and cannot make proper decisions – so make the best of it. This, I submit, expresses the soul of George Soros and indicates why he is a danger to our political processes and to our very survival.

To see this, let's look at his investment philosophy. The idea of looking for bubbles of perceived (but non-existent value) is a form of investment strategy that reflects this philosophy. And in fact, it reflects the truth that Soros’ investment philosophy is not at all brilliant or perceptive. It reflects his ignorance of man’s true value, man’s ability to project the future and make good decisions about investments. In fact, it is not difficult to recognize the signs of over-inflated currency values. It takes no special genius. The currency markets are covered extensively by money experts and, once something untoward is discovered, it is usually not a secret among those who understand the markets. It would not have been difficult for Soros to “find out” about the shady dealings of governments.

But consider what this perspective opens up for an investor like Soros. Once you understand the principle of how bubbles are created, not only can you understand how governments deceive people and manipulate value, but you also have a model for manipulating markets yourself. If the government can do it, so can a well placed investor. It is done by means of buying politicians and dictators, using propaganda and the media to hype an investment and then getting the leaders of a nation to do what you want at the appropriate time in return for a piece of the loot. Such manipulations are possible and there is nothing that can stop them as long as the investor is protected by the politicians he has helped put into power.

An honest investor would base his investment philosophy on a rational set of values. An investor, properly, should be looking for companies and trends that have the prospect of gaining in the market and improving peoples’ lives. Otherwise, why call it investing? Such an investor participates in the free market and is part of the process because his investment makes it possible for the company to offer new products. For an investor to base investment decisions on the premise that governments and people do irrational things means that the investor is selling short on production. It is a negative view of investing based in cynicism about man and his ability to build and save for the future.

Soros does not attempt to participate in the herd movement that attends a company when it is becoming more productive. Instead, Soros counts on identifying a vulnerability created by irrationality (fallibility) and then ensuring that he is the first to exit the investment before the herd exits and, through this process, creates the herd mentality that destroys the value of the investment. In my view, this is a cynical investment philosophy that is based upon taking advantage of stupidity in the marketplace rather than counting on rational decisions. It is, in essence, a view that all investment is based on irrationality and one need merely take advantage of the ignorant “other” investors in order to succeed.

The idea of fallibility is based upon Hume’s “empiricism,” his analysis that concludes that man can’t know reality. Soros accepts this view and bases his philosophy of action upon it. It means that his focus in life is merely to work within the cracks and find opportunities to milk the money produced by those that mistakenly seek production. It is a negative philosophy, a cynical view of man that says he is stupid, that he is led in herds and that Soros, the investor, and the man who wants to make the world a better place, approaches everything he does from the standpoint that man is a fool.

Some may think that Soros, like many billionaires, engages in philanthropy merely because he feels guilty for the way he earns his money and is trying to atone for it by helping society. I beg to differ. There is no atonement here. Both efforts, investment and philanthropy, are consistently based upon Popper’s view that man cannot know reality and, Soros thinks, he must be led in herds down a path of his choosing; a path that benefits Soros and his investors. This can be seen in the political campaigns he supports. These campaigns are not intended to offer open discussions of ideas that give the voter a chance to decide for himself among honorable competitors who disagree. Instead, political campaigns, since Soros, are polarizing and full of moral outrage. The Democrats, for some reason, are good and the Republicans are evil, racist, fascist, corrupt and liars. The Democrats support the common man and the Republicans support the greedy rich. Soros’ Democrats do not argue the issues; they spew venom and hatred toward George Bush and others. Leftist blogs do not assume that honest people can disagree; they tell us that the Republicans are vile and evil dictators, dishonest and hateful of all that is good. Theirs is a political moral dualism.

Why does Soros support such tactics? He is a product of his own philosophy; he has no standard of value when it comes to persuasion because, according to Hume and Popper, there are no standards for the development of real knowledge. Rather than present us with better ideas, he can only throw as much money as necessary into Democratic political campaigns to “convince” us, through public relations and constant repetition of lies (since we can’t know anything), to appeal to our emotions, our hatreds, our ignorance. This is the better world that Soros wants to make.

Fortunately, Soros can’t succeed. Man does have a mind. Mr. Soros’ quest to find bubbles is difficult because finding stupid people is not that easy. But Soros can do a lot of damage to our society, enough perhaps to weaken us while terrorists advance. Many lives may be lost because Soros has derailed our institutions with his money. Consider that most people today have yet to figure out the damage done by Hume, Kant and Popper. The "intentions" of these philosophers to destroy the mind of man have yet to be exposed and the results are all around us in skepticism and cynicism, dictatorship and poverty. Soros is one of their troops. If we can't understand what the philosophers were up to, how can we understand what one of the troops is doing? It takes the ability to see very broad abstractions to catch a clever thief and that is why we only catch a philosophical thief centuries after he has committed his crime. I consider myself ahead on this one.

What Soros misses is that human ignorance (or fallibility) is only a phase in the human thought process. It is not a continuous circumstance. It is the phase before enlightenment and certainty. We misinterpret reality and the universe when we interpret ignorance as the basic principle of life. It is similar to the uneducated people who stay mired in their own irrational environments because they assume that because everyone they know is irrational and dysfunctional, then all people, even those that are successful, are the same way. This method of thinking only serves to keep these people from succeeding at all because it destroys reason and honest living as possibilities in life. For intellectuals with the same viewpoint, the decline of philosophy is the result along with the very real poverty, global mediocrity and the dictatorships of the 20th century. For every philosopher who thinks that human fallibility is the norm, there are millions of dead bodies, disease, ignorance and social decline. This is also the future world that George Soros will create if he is given a chance.

Reason is the arbiter of ignorance as it moves toward certainty. It is an effort to understand existence in order to harmonize man and his actions with reality and the facts. Reason creates society and freedom. Ignorance creates dictatorship and war. Reason makes happiness possible. Ignorance creates loss. To base one’s philosophy of life on the premise that men are imperfect and ignorant is to assume that men will never achieve the harmony that comes from certainty. It also means that one is banking on stupidity and waiting for a chance to pounce on those that make bad decisions. To assume that all decisions are bad decisions is to become a pariah on mankind, an exploiter and a user. This, I submit, explains George Soros’ philanthropic and political activities.

Consider how this works. When there is no method for obtaining knowledge, there is no method for the individual to know and be certain about whether his actions and opinions are correct. This applies to Soros as well. Observe that his political views are not consistently held. There are no principles involved because principles are not possible under his philosophy. His only principles are concrete feelings that result in an adherence to an “open” society and his belief that only liberals/Democrats deserve his support. His reasons for this view are seldom argued or presented. It is almost an emotional “bold leap” on his part that he has hitched his saddle on the Democratic horse. His hatred of George Bush is an emotional ejaculation supported by bromides and folksy criticisms of Bush. Perhaps he has subconsciously calculated that the Democrats are more corrupt and therefore it is easier to buy them, that they hold no principles – and since he doesn’t believe that there are any principles, they are the group that deserves his support. Or perhaps he thinks they want the same sort of “open” society he wants; which is logical since a caretaker, socialist government is one that denies all principles except “the will of the people” as it is engineered by political “framers” and social planners.

“Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a 527 liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.”[6]

Visit moveon.org. You will learn that this organization will say anything, distort anything, lie and deceive people about the facts, so long as it can defeat George Bush. Truth is not important to moveon.org. You either hate Bush or you are stupid. In fact, since George Soros has been involved in politics over the last 10 or so years the debates all over the country have become more shrill, less issues-oriented and more polarized; that Democrats refuse to work with Republicans on difficult issues in congress, that they block, that they withhold support and do nothing but make spurious attacks against Bush should make you wonder at Soros’ money influence. In fact, many of George Bush’s efforts to work with members of the other party are swiftly defeated by a total lack of civility and a refusal to cooperate. The only one who doesn't understand all of this is George Bush.

The Democrats have no reasons and no principles upon which to oppose Bush. He knowingly went into a war without proper intelligence which is not true. He lied to get us into a war which is not true. He stole an election which is not true. Over and over, we do not get provable facts coming out of any of the hundreds of analyses, investigations and invented scandals regarding George Bush...we get only hatred of George Bush. This is the closest thing to a principle that the Democrats are able to muster, but they want us to vote them into power, into total power. With no principles, how can they run our country, provide us with a civil society and defeat the terrorists? How can they lead us when they don’t know what they would do? If I were a Democrat (I am an Independent), I would hope we lost every election.

If we look at how progressives, skeptics and nihilists operate, we find that, like Soros, their method of using knowledge reveals the consistency of their inconsistent views. You will notice that these people always argue from negative viewpoints that analyze specific issues out of context. They accomplish their political intention, which is to ensure that people do not see the contradictions in their views, through a selective focus and selective arguments. This is also typical of the arch skeptics, Hume and Kant who both characteristically analyzed specific epistemological issues out of context. From these out-of-context discussions they first sowed confusion and then drew sweeping generalizations to the effect that man could not rely on his sensations, could not rely on his knowledge and therefore his only choice was to follow the dictates of religious leaders and dictators by practicing the altruism they demanded. Let’s be clear, the only purpose of both religion and skepticism is to reduce man’s mind to a malleable, reflexive and fallible state. George Soros is merely an opportunist taking advantage of Hume, Kant and Popper's life work.

I quote from a Washington Post article (November 11, 2003), “It is the central focus of my life,” Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is “a matter of life and death.”[7] We assume, of course, that Soros is talking about a matter of life and death for the country and not for himself or his businesses. In his view, there must be something so sinister going in the Bush administration that he (Soros) must step forward as the savior of the world and use all his off-shore nested money to defeat Bush. Since he seldom discusses Bush’s policies coherently, even in his book where he discusses Bush extensively, how can he possibly know that Bush is wrong? Bush holds certain opinions and policies that Soros must consider to be held by Bush as "ultimate truths", and that to Soros, is a sign of being wrong. Bush should, if he were to follow Soros, never hold a consistent view on anything, always be asking others to help him decide, any others chosen by any standard, and never claim he has certainty about what to do. In other words, Bush is wrong according to Soros because he is not “open.” Bush does not adhere to the principles of an “open society.” Bush is wrong because he is not like Jimmy Carter, the most failed President of our generation.

“BERKELEY – Might does not make right, and therefore the United States has committed a tremendous mistake in using its military supremacy to force democracy on Iraq. That was the blunt critique of the Bush Administration that billionaire financier and munificent philanthropist George Soros delivered to a packed audience at UC Berkeley last night.”[8]

I agree with the truth of the principle that might does not make right. Pindar, the Greek poet was one of the few advocates of it as well as people like Hitler and Stalin, all with whom Soros must certainly disagree, since he is himself an escapee of “occupied Hungary.” But Soros’ use of the cliché to describe American foreign policy, and his deliberate taking of the Iraq war out of the “terror” context, means that we should not have fought World War II or defended ourselves after Pearl Harbor or even after 9/11. I presume that Lincoln was wrong in using might to preserve the nation. Perhaps some Americans will buy that, but the statement is a purely pacifist and morally bankrupt statement based upon a shallow and impractical moral equivalence that fades into meaninglessness in view of the 9/11 attacks.

“America, under Bush, is a danger to the world,” Soros said. Then he smiled: “And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”[9]

So, it would seem that money makes right. And Mr. Soros was willing during the last presidential election to spend a lot of it to guarantee a Kerry victory. I don’t know about you, but as a free person, I’m not comfortable with that. I like the idea of one person one vote, everybody thinking over the issues and making a grave decision, for themselves, for their children, for their futures. I don’t want to be bowled over or threatened by a bunch of jackboots with lots of money. I’ve grown tired of people who think they can buy my vote or steal elections. Worse even are those who think they own my vote because of some supposed benefit that they have not given me - or who tell me I am a disgrace to my people because of the fact that I happen to believe in a free country, not one made up of Democratic Party slaves/beneficiaries that must toe the party line.

By setting himself up as a person that is looking out after our interests through his numerous charitable donations and his "Open Society" organization, Soros is saying that he wants us to trust him. I say you cannot count on him to look out for your interests. Soros has a carefully planned investment strategy through his philanthropic and political activities that is fully consistent with his financial investment strategy. His investment strategy in our country is essentially this: create the stampede of fallible, manipulated people and then sell short and steal their money. It involves creating a bubble of deception for the Democrats that will get them elected. One thing you can be sure of: if the Democrats manage to control our government, you can bet that lots of money will flow to George Soros while people starve. The irony that Mr. Soros misses is that the money he "earns" won't be worth anything. No amount of reflexivity will make it so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/229012.stm

[2] http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/england-bank.htm

[3] The Age of Fallibility, Page 16

[4] David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by I. A. Selby-Bigge (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1894)

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

[8] http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/04_soros.shtml

[9] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------