Skip to content

American Thinker: What Soros Wanted, Obama Delivers

October 13, 2009

FINANCIAL-SOROS/October 14, 2009

What Soros Wanted, Obama Delivers

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

In January 2004, George Soros proclaimed to the world, “I have made rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life.”  To which he added, “America, under Bush, is a danger to the world.  And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”  Soros then waged a nearly one-wallet war against Bush, put more than $25 million of his own cash into Kerry’s election bid and came out of the whole gambit with a tattered I-Voted-for-the-other-guy t-shirt. 

In 2006, Soros declared in a depressive-mood pity party at the Council on Foreign Relations:  “In the future, I’d very much like to get disengaged from politics.  I’m interested in policy and not in politics.”

If only he had stayed depressed and kept to his better intention.

But no such luck would come America’s way.

Soros supported Barack Obama’s candidacy, telling Judy Woodriff in May 2008, “…Obama has the charisma and the vision to radically reorient America in the world.”  When Woodriff queried Soros on whether it might be a concern that Obama lacked experience to lead in this dangerous time we live in, Soros responded, “…this emphasis on experience is way overdone…” 

Experience was actually far underrated in that contest, but we’ll have to save that subject for another day. 

Now, it would seem that all Soros wanted, Barack Obama is delivering.

via American Thinker: What Soros Wanted, Obama Delivers.

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. Tater Salad permalink
    October 14, 2009 8:12 AM

    I have been slogging through Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. In it he defines the people of the world in three categories: the Haves, the Have-nots and the Have-a-little, want mores. He argues that it is the universal “job” of the Haves to prevent change to protect what they have, the job of the Have-nots to take from the Haves and the Have-a-little, want mores (the middle class) to sit on on the sidelines and wait to see what happens. He believes – much like Lenin – that the job of the radical revolutionary is to convince the Have-a-little, want mores to help the Have-nots bring about revolutionary change. As a means to ending inequality of wealth he says, “I will argue the failure to use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people signals the end of the revolution and the start of the counterrevolution.”

    He claims he isn’t a communist or a Marxist, however. Alinsky bemoans a situation where revolution is always synonymous with communism and Marxism. “We have permitted a suicidal situation to unfold wherein revolution and communism have become one,” he complains. He argues that he has no ideology at all and that his goal is only to create a better society. Like leftists everywhere, Alinsky believes that human happiness is based on the social order and, if only the right order can be found, human happiness will abound. He believes that if people are placed in the proper social order, human nature itself will change. He sees the failure of all attempts at communist societies and recognizes the lack of marketability of Marxist and communist labels. He doesn’t much deviate from the goals of Marxism except to engage in a certain amoral nihilism that is found in the second chapter of his book.

    In the chapter titled “Of Means and Ends” Alinsky asks the perennial question, “does the end justify the means.” He correctly points out that the question is nonsensical and should be be “does this particular end justify these specific means.” He then goes about documenting his eleven rules for the ethics of means and ends.

    1. One’s concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

    Here he is saying that it is easy to judge the behavior of others as ethical or unethical if your ass isn’t on the line. “We all have strength enough to endure the misfortune of others.”

    2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

    Here he explains that all is relative. A hawk may seem evil to a field mouse while we judge the hawk to be morally neutral. Wolves are evil to deer and the George Washington was evil in the judgment of King George II. He would today that bin Laden is only evil to Americans but that is a subjective judgment. He is no more evil to his supporters than was George Washington to the colonial citizens.

    3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

    When your ass is on the line, you can do anything and it may be considered moral. He relates the story of Winston Churchill welcoming the Soviet Union to the alliance against Hitler and being asked if it was morally acceptable to form an alliance with a totalitarian murderer like Stalin, Churchill assured his questioner that there is was no moral issues in partnering with Stalin. He said, “I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least one favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

    4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

    Habeus corpus is a moral good but Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War and used illegal military commissions to try civilians. Alinsky believes that this was morally acceptable then, due to the circumstances, even if it wouldn’t be today.

    5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

    Here he essentially says that, when you have multiple means, you should use the most ethical. If you are limited with a single means for achieving your end, you should use it without consideration of the ethics of it… you have no other choice. If you have many choices of means to achieve your end, you can and should concern yourself with ethics.

    6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

    This is pretty straight forward. Ends of little importance should have their means intensely vetted. With critically important ends, the ethics of the means become of little consequence.

    7. Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

    History is written by the winners. If you are successful in accomplishing your end, your means will be judged ethical regardless of what occurred.

    8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

    It isn’t okay to go straight to the nuclear option. If, on the other hand, the enemy is at the gates and defeat is imminent, you can take the gloves off. When you are making your last stand, anything you do is ethical.

    9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

    Blockading Southern ports during the Civil War was judged unethical by the Confederates. Fighting like Indians and savages by the militia during the U.S. Revolutionary War was considered unethical by the British. Tea parties and boisterous townhall meetings are considered unethical by Pelosi and Reid. If it works, the opposition will call it unethical.

    10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

    Alinsky claims that Gandhi would rather have fought the British with firearms but he had no guns and he had no army. Therefore he invented nonviolent resistance and pretended that it was his first choice due to the ethics of it. Alinsky argues that nonviolence was his only choice so he draped it in morality so it didn’t appear to be the only choice of a weak movement.

    11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

    Alinsky wants to ensure a “goal once named cannot be countermanded.” It doesn’t matter that setting out to preserve the Union becomes a quest to end slavery if the entire enterprise has its goals marketed broadly in terms of freedom and liberty. It is all in the spin.

    The summation of these rules is that there is no objective morality or individual ethic. All ethics and morality are circumstantial and, while all ends don’t justify any means, there are ends that justify any means. Alinsky argues that important ends justify almost any means and that individual morality is the hobgoblin of history’s losers.

    The above set of rules certainly justify as ethical and moral the waterboarding of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad as a means to save many thousands of American lives. The above rules also justify Holder’s investigation and prosecution of the waterboarders. The ethical justification of Holder’s hobbling of the CIA is to solidify the support of the base for Obama and to bring about the Administration’s goal of weakening the CIA and its ability to, in their view, oppress people around the world. Obama and Holder almost certainly have no opposition to waterboarding per se, they are simply using available means to reach what they see as critically important ends. This, according to Alinsky, is all perfectly ethical.

    You will find in the Obama Administration no moral compass. The term “moral compass” implies there is some objective “true north” of moral and ethical behavior. As students of Alinsky, Obama and his enablers believe no such objectively moral absolutes exist. Individual ethics are for suckers. Anchored morality is for losers. The ends will always justify the means for the victorious.

    This is the opponent we face. We should not be surprised when the Obama Administration justifies shocking means to what they deem critical ends.

    (copy)

  2. Ole Sandberg permalink
    October 14, 2009 9:03 AM

    Soros is a Groucho Marxist without a sense of humor. Groucho joked that he would never belong to a club that would accept him as a member. Soros, in all seriousness, has decided that he cannot accept a society that enables someone like him to become a multi-billionaire. It takes an effort to resist the temptation to agree with him.

Trackbacks

  1. News You Need to Know 14Oct09 | Mega Glomerate Main-Stream Media

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: