Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

George Soros recommits himself to destroying nationalism

An Analysis: Open Society Foundation receives $18bn infusion by controversial philanthropist to further globalist, secular humanist causes

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

5,143 Views

George Soros pledged that he would renew his fight against the ideology of nationalism, admitting at the same time that the experiment of the European Union is near breaking down.  Reported on January 15th by Breitbart News, the billionaire currency speculator was quoted by the Financial Times as saying:

It’s deja vu all over again with one big change – the dominant ideology in the world now is nationalism… It’s the EU that’s the institution that’s on the verge of a breakdown… And Russia is the resurgent power, based on nationalism.”

Mr. Soros is one of the major players in the world in terms of advancing the concept of globalization.  In so doing, he has managed to help partially demonize the idea of national sovereignty, and this effort has met with quite a bit of success in many ways.  So for him, the idea that the nation-state would be the primary way of governance, rather than a “global community”, is repugnant enough that the 87-year-old put US $18 billion of his own wealth into the Open Society Foundations to further the crusade he thinks is so important.

Soros is often held to account as an “evil man” and there are a number of conspiracy theories about his group’s interference in traditional social and national causes.  Not all of these conspiracies are true, but not all of them aren’t.  Having been witness to Open Society-spawned interference in the matter of adolescent drug treatment programs, it is easy to see both how subtle and how powerful his group’s influence can be.

But, lest we at The Duran be considered simply another room in the echo chamber that demonizes Mr. Soros, let’s try to examine what the actual issues are with him.  Why is an 87-year-old man from Hungary considered so dangerous that he is not allowed in Russia, and is hated by his own countrymen, and feared by so many people around the world?  There must be some basis.  We start to explore that now.

George Soros and the Open Society Foundation – The pursuit of Utopia

George Soros is one of a select number of individuals who epitomize the character of radical secular humanism.  He is successful, extremely wealthy and financially astute, with the ability to make money from any and every turn of financial, social and political events.  He is, to quote C.S. Lewis, “dreadfully practical.” To be dreadfully practical does not sound very positive.  And in his case, this is true.  His Open Society Foundation promotes causes that on the surface often look to be quite compassionate and kind.  But in reality, these policy directions promote decay and death.  The reason for this is simply because they are based in the theological framework of “secular humanism.”

Note that we used the word theological. This is absolutely the case, and it is well insulated because most secular Western media outlets will not dare to report “theology in action” as the source of a variety of policies and events that shape the world around us.  Theology is of course, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience primarily. But it centers around some ultimate source, or Source, if you will. Every philosophy of life has a theological undercurrent to explain the “why” of why we subscribe to the teachings in question. The “religion” of secular humanism has its own pseudo-theology. Understanding its basis helps us decrypt the dangers of modern-day progressivism.

Leo Tolstoy, one of the lead voices for secular humanism

Secular humanism got much of its force from the writings of none other than Leo Tolstoy. The history of this is interesting but a bit lengthy for the scope of this piece.  However, for Tolstoy, the underlying philosophy of life was rooted in the teachings of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.  However, Tolstoy was stumped by the matter of Jesus Christ’s personal divinity as the Son of God, something which the novelist was never able to accept.  However, Tolstoy got to a place where he was able to understand the Sermon as a series of principles, that if practiced, would bring Utopia on earth.  But he could not accept the teaching in context with the fact that this is a way of life rooted in God. Tolstoy wrote this about his understanding of the Sermon on the Mount:

It may be affirmed that the constant fulfilment of this rule is difficult, and that not every man will find his happiness in obeying it. It may be said that it is foolish; that, as unbelievers pretend, Jesus was a visionary, an idealist, whose impracticable rules were only followed because of the stupidity of his disciples. But it is impossible not to admit that Jesus did say very clearly and definitely that which he intended to say: namely, that men should not resist evil; and that therefore he who accepts his teaching cannot resist.

Here, of course was the best thinking that Tolstoy could accomplish, for to him the divinity of Christ was a foolish and mad concept.  Nevertheless, the Sermon on the Mount became his philosophical core, and taken apart from the nature of its Author, it looks like a prescription for utopia.

This is why Soros’ Open Society Foundation seems so irresistible to the Western thinker. Everything about its policy points, from drug-use normalization to acceptance of sexual deviancies to the elimination of nationalism, all seems like the practical next steps in “progress” of human society from a rough, primitive, nationalist, traditionalist, restricted worldview, to one that is “enlightened” and “with the times” and “synchronized to the reality of the human spirit.”

If we take the Sermon’s teachings out of context, it is easy to understand much of the base tenets of liberalism, progressivism, and of course the overarching philosophy of secular humanism itself.  Tolstoy also cherry picked other instructions attributed to Christ’s teaching, but he did so inaccurately and without discernment, and much of those principles are expressed in various ways throughout humanist circles.

Secular Humanist ideas being promoted as “moral” issues – shows connection to religious aspects of this philosophy,

Further connections to progressivism

If we honestly examine the viewpoints of many modern religious groups, we are easily able to find many who consider themselves Christian groups.  Some are churches and religious denominations and some are social and activist agencies that are not churches.  But all of them share a similar conviction that doing the actions of compassion and ‘fairness’ is all that is needed to be Christian, and in this context, Christ himself is the Chief Philosopher and Teacher of this way of life.

Many noble programs and agencies have indeed come to existence from people following essential Christian teachings on how to live and interact with others. But in recent decades we have begun to witness the effect of removing the Divine Nature from the center of why we do what we do.  Rather than feeling like we serve God by doing what we do, we think of serving “the greater good” and these are not the same thing.  The “greater good” is a highly malleable concept.  The God of our Scriptures and ancient Christian institutions, on which most of Europe was based, is NOT malleable.  What do many of us prefer?  Easy.

The United States of America used to hold the line for traditional values, but no longer

During the Cold War, the common byline taught to children in the United States was “we are free to worship God as we wish… in the Soviet Union, they are arrested and killed for praying, and they are not allowed to choose their own way in life.”

There was a lot of truth to this statement, though of course, since a lot of it was necessary propaganda, some of it was not really so. However, it was enough to keep American values quite traditionally-based through a significant period of its history.  We were taught to VALUE the fact we could pray to God and go to Church, and that we could be protected against attacks from people that did not like our beliefs.

But now, look how things have changed in the United States!

During the last years of Obama’s term, the definition of “Christian” became associated with “hater”, “bigot”, “homophobe”, and many other very derogatory terms.  We became cowed in the workplace, in many places unable to talk about our faith with one another, lest we “offend” someone there.  We saw businesses illegally persecuted by government agencies because the owners tried to follow their religious beliefs.  And in an amazing sell-out, we even saw clergy – some of them Orthodox (very traditional) Christian clergy take the side of the anti-Christian force in the name of “fairness and tolerance.”  Some other clergy are now made afraid to speak the truth of God because they might be run out of their own parishes.

What is more significant than even this is a loss of understanding of what Christian faith actually is.  In 2006, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama spoke about the charge laid against him by opponent Alan Keyes that he was not a Christian.  Included in this speech was this thought:

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

So, look at this, and look at Tolstoy’s comments above.  Notice the similarity?  Here, Obama is talking about Christian faith as the agent of social change, and not about the matter of the divinity of Christ himself, or of living according to God’s commandment.  Yet, this speech no doubt served as a salve to reassure many people that, yes, Obama is a Christian.

Patriarch Kirill and Archbishop Ieronymos with Russian President Vladimir Putin

Modern day Russia is one of the last bastions of traditional values

How we believe shapes how we be, as well as how we act. This is not a tenuous argument.  Now, the view held by traditional Christians, mainly Eastern Orthodox, follows lines that today are demonized as “nationalism” but which have very ancient roots.  Israel was a nation that was bound by a covenant, an agreement, with a Divine Power.  Even when Israel got a king, in the fashion of other nations, the first two kings were deliberately selected by Divine Providence, through the mouth of a prophet. Both kings went wrong in ways.  Such is the fate of humans who mess things up.  But this also teaches something.  Monarchy and nationalism are not guarantees of Utopia; the fact is, they were never meant to be. Yet, a nation that lives in obedience to the Divine Authority it claims to be under, does quite well.

The Western press likes to call Putin a closet Communist.  But it also likes to vilify him as candidate for Tsar. He is neither. But that is the nature of the Western press – to take whatever point best suits the purpose, for the accomplishment of the “greater good” of taking down a nation that has increasingly been dedicating itself to the ancient principle that a nation that trusts God and serves him is also saved by him. The main thing that energized the secular press against President Putin was his open declaration of his Christian faith, and his fearless and honest assessment of the secular institutions of modern Europe:

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation. 

We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilization.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote pedophilia.

People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation.

And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world.

Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration.

Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity.

This is something that is an utter affront to secular humanists, hence to people like George Soros and those who believe as he does, as Tolstoy did, and as Obama does.  The philosophy of Utopia is not compatible with ancient tradition.  And history has so far shown us that it is the ancient traditions that endure, and the old truths never fail.

This is our fight, and this is why nationalism is increasingly vilified. Nationalism, particularly that of monarchy in the Christian tradition, is inextricably tied to Something, to Someone we cannot see, taste, touch…

…or control.

And and it is this, that is the crux of the problem.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending