Saturday, December 31, 2016

National Socialism Bad; International Socialism Good

George Soros is at it again.  Don’t blame him for the calamities facing the various countries of the west.  It is all Germany’s fault; it is also all Putin’s fault.  It has nothing to do with crony capitalism and central banking; it has nothing to do with his open borders / refugee / immigration initiatives.  Nothing to do with bringing freedom through warfare and invasion throughout North Africa, the Middle East, Central Europe and Central Asia. 

Nope.  Nothing to do with any of the causes that he supported.  Instead, the fault lies with those who have opposed these causes.

He opens with his memories of growing up in Hungary, under “Hitler’s” Germany.  This so the imagery wouldn’t be missed when he writes later of Trump and the various similar voter rebellions and national movements coming in Europe. 

You see, it is quite simple: everyone not on George’s side is Hitler…or maybe Putin…well, since Putin is also Hitler I guess we can just keep it simple and say everyone not on George’s side is Hitler.

Now that he has placed the reader in the right frame of mind…. George offers that there are two kinds of political regimes: the “good” kind, where people elect leaders who kindly look after their interests; the “bad” kind, where rulers manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers.

No third choice?  What about the “ugly” kind, where subjects pretend their vote matters; where every option on the ballot equates to being controlled; where, in reality, all they are voting for is the name of their next manipulator-in-chief? 

Before a semi-sentient being would have a chance to throw up all over his limited possibilities, he offers that this classification can be considered “too simplistic” (duh), yet he still promotes the former and not the latter.  It seems George cannot conceive of any other possibility.

What he calls “open societies” are, today, in crisis; so-called closed societies are on the rise.  He asks: how does this happen?  He suggests that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ expectations, leading voters to become disenfranchised. 

What were these failures?  According to George, first on this list is the lack of redistributive policies.  Consider this: voters are rejecting the establishment because there is not enough welfare and socialism.  Not just any welfare and socialism – as that has already been accomplished in virtually every developed country – but a special kind of welfare and socialism….

You see…Europe has additional problems.  He offers that he was a supporter of the European Union from the outset.  The problem?  After the crash of 2008, the relationship didn’t work so well because the creditors decided they didn’t want to pursue international socialism by subsidizing the debtors.  George blames the Germans.

To be clear: George doesn’t like Hitler’s National Socialism, instead wanting to replace it with International Socialism.  Poor Germans: damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Germans should have looked beyond their national interest; they made the same mistake in the good old, National Socialism (aka “Nazi”), days.  Instead, the Germans should take a page from the Comintern: international socialism.

National Socialism bad; international socialism good.

George then points to the rise of anti-EU movements.  He offers no reasons, no background – as if these movements came out of the blue, sprung up from nothingness as if God declared it on the Sixth Day.  Such movements threaten to elect nationalist leaders in many European countries, he says, just as has happened with the election of a “con-artist” as president of the United States.

Con-artist for president?  Stand in line, buddy; there have been at least 30 or 40 already.  Americans have a 200 year history of electing con-artists.

The Germans, nationalism, con-artists, anti-EU sentiment.  So far, the only reason George offers for all of this backlash is because the Germans and voters throughout the west would not support international socialism.

Nothing to see here folks; move along.

George then moves on to Putin.  Bad Vlad: exploiting social media companies, deploying his fake news outlets, spreading misinformation.  George offers no examples of this misinformation.  For example, George could have pointed out any of the following facts:

·        the relative distance of Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, and the Balkans from both Moscow and Washington DC
·        the freedom all Libyans and Syrians enjoy today after being offered revolution
·        the stability in Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade-and-a-half of western-style nation building
·        that the South China Sea is really close to Catalina Island
·        the benefits offered to the masses by central banking
·        that the leaked (not likely hacked) emails were fakes, planted lies only to embarrass Hillary and the democrats

Just a few such facts would go a long way to bolstering George’s claims.

George sees Putin exploiting upcoming elections in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France.  Putin is going to hypnotize the voters in every country in the west.  There is the German legend of the Rattenfänger von Hameln; Putin apparently holds similar skills.

What doesn’t George mention?  Not a peep about open borders immigration.  He mentioned the refugee crisis only once, and only in passing in the closing paragraph – never linking this to the reasons for disillusionment nor identifying his support for these disastrous policies. 

It is as if his editor said “George, it will be laughable if you write about the backlash of the people against the elite, especially in Europe, and not mention as one of the causes the refugee crisis.”  George, properly chastised, did his best to hide it.


International Socialism: this is George’s position and interim objective, but it is only a passage on the road to his desired one-world government.

Friday, December 30, 2016

Mark Your Calendar

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire (also called Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of Rome) was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into several successor polities.

By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman.

December 30, 2016.  I believe today will mark the day that historians will record as the “476” of the US Empire. 

Just as with Rome, there were signs of this for years, even decades.  Despite having the mightiest military on earth, it is difficult to describe as a “win” any US military endeavor since 1945.  The coins were shaved, beginning in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve and culminating in 1971 with Nixon closing the gold window.  The people were held together with bread and circuses, with ties of family and market disintegrating with Johnson’s Great Society more than 50 years ago; with football replacing church as America’s favorite Sunday activity.

So why today?  What is so special about this day? 

Putin did not tit for Obama’s tat.  Putin did not react to the infant’s temper tantrum by spanking the baby; instead he displayed a measured response, demonstrating a mature grasp of the situation in the face of the baby’s lack of maturity.  He decided: “this baby needs to be cuddled until what I anticipate will be the more mature parent arrives next month.”

For several years, Putin has been seen by many on the world stage (outside of the US) as the premier diplomat.  His counterpart, Obama, began with dreams of hope and change and left with nothing but a failed legacy – nothing good has come from his international programs and nothing will survive of his domestic programs (sadly, his police state will continue until it can no longer be sustained).

What does today signify?  The battle lines will be clearly drawn, and the battle will play out on two stages simultaneously.  On one stage: global actors moving in the spaces between the US on one side and Russia with China on the other; yet slowly moving away from the US and toward Russia and China.  This has been going on for years, but will continue to accelerate.

On the second stage, the US political scene.  Trump’s statements during and after the election are reasonably consistent regarding his desires to move toward diplomacy with Russia; his nominee for Secretary of State confirms this view.  At the same time, it is becoming clear that Trump will – on this issue – face a hostile congress. 

Many republicans, to go along with many democrats, want to continue the fight with Russia and continue the “manifest destiny” of the US to control the world – with only Russia and secondarily (for today) China standing in the way.  This move by Obama signals that republicans in congress conveyed to the administration that they will keep the press on Trump when he comes into office.

The action on these two stages holds significant potential for violence and conflict – within nation-states and between nation-states.  Very few will go down easily, as did – for example – the USSR 25 years ago.

I have long held the view that much of Western Europe will eventually look east for trade and diplomatic ties.  The US is seen more and more as vindictive, reactive, immature, unthinking.  Putin’s action today – infinitely more overt than any such action before – makes this plainly obvious to every meaningful world political leader and every intellectually (reasonably) honest thought leader this reality.


Of course, the Roman Empire continued after 476 in the east, in Constantinople; ultimately not Catholic, but Orthodox.  Some consider that Russia is now the center of this Orthodox tradition, replacing Constantinople after its fall to the Muslim Turks.

History doesn’t repeat, but it just might rhyme.


Featured speaker: William Shatner

The future of liberty?  A Trekkie convention?