Missives from Satan: Memoranda of George Soros on his “GeorgeSoros.com” website

One thing few do enough of is the systematic examination of the public statements — especially when solidified in written form — of one’s enemies.  Depending on whom you view as your enemy, therefore, a careful examination of such texts as The Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky (real name, Lev Bronstein), Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, plus Hitler’s second book, drafts of which were found by the U.S. Army after World War II, or Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1971) would have been in order.

In today’s world, a Hungarian-Jewish immigrant named George Soros has clearly become an enemy of ordered society — at least, as such a society would be defined by most sane people and, presumably, most readers on this website.  For that reason, the humble author of this piece thinks it might be wise to peruse some of the writings of this eminent individual.  I was an early reader of George’s first book Alchemy of Finance; however, that was a more or less anodyne description of the irrationality of securities markets with which even the mainstream Charlie Munger would agree.  However it is his later works, most of which are set forth on his website, are the ones most relevant to his views on public policy.

I call them “Missives from Satan”.  And when one is fighting Satan, it might be wise to read some of his writings.  So here goes.

George’s big “shtick”1/ is famously his espousal of an “open society” everywhere, which, if he is to be believed, is the cure for all ills.  Whatever.  But a clear understanding of what he means by “open society” in fact lays bare his actual goals.  Which are anything but open, and prognosticates a “society” in which few sane people would like to live.

Below is Soros’ 1993 sorry attempt to define an “open society”:

Open and Closed Societies:

This brings me to the second part of my conceptual framework. To understand the current situation, I contend that it is very useful to draw a distinction between open and closed societies. The distinction is based on the same philosophical foundations as my theory of history, namely, that participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding. Open society is based on the recognition of this principle and closed society on its denial. In a closed society, there is an authority which is the dispenser of the ultimate truth; open society does not recognize such authority even if it recognizes the rule of law and the sovereignty of the state. The state is not based on a dogma and society is not dominated by the state. The government is elected by the people and it can be changed. Above all, there is respect for minorities and minority opinions. Soros, “Toward a New World Order:  The Future of NATO”, November 1, 1993

Clearly there is a contradiction.  What if the “people” that “elects” the government doesn’t like certain or any minorities?  This is a problem, because, in addition, in an “open society”,  “above all, there is a respect for minorities and minority opinions”!  There is an inherent conflict.  This is no accident — either for Soros or his intellectual progenitor, Karl Popper.  See: “The Idea that Shaped the Modern World: | Soros, Popper & The Open Society” (youtube.com)(sadly, since this time, removed from youtube).

By 2023, ol’ George had apparently determined to avoid this linguistic conflict.  In his various ex cathedra missives in these later years, there is no mention of “elections” or “democracy”.  The definition he gives of an “open society” is simply that it is a free-market society that elevates minorities, sort of like an international business convention.

So he has dispensed with tiresome ol’ democracy.

But note that his definition of an “open” society as developed over the years is not even “open” as a normal human would define it.  In actuality, there is no respect for opinions other than those of the group — presumably a minority — that have grasped control.  In the West, sadly, this means that it is a society that has respect for Jewish opinions and those of their shabbos goy allies. Opinions of all others be damned.

Since the people who run the EU, in contrast to their predecessor statesmen, are not very smart or educated, they simply slap on the word “democracy” on the assumption it is synonymous with “open society”.  However, it is clear from their actions that they promote not “democracy”, but only George Soros’ view of an open society.

Accordingly, every time the EU uses the word “democracy” we should translate from “EU speak” to “Soros speak” and substitute the words “open society”.  Doing so, their statements start to make sense.  So they claim that Hungary is not a “democracy”, but really mean it is not an “open society” because it does not worship the views that Soros holds as sacred.  But if we then translate one more time from Soros speak to plain English and substitute the words “anti-White society” for “open society”, we finally realize that the EU statements make sense.

So the real claim is “Hungary is not an anti-White society dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.”  True.  So far.

EU speak:  “Poland before Tusk and Hungary under Orban are not democratic.”   This is patently ridiculous.  The people of those countries elected those governments in open elections.

Translation from EU speak to Soros speak, however, “neither are ‘open societies’”.

Translation from Soros speak to plain English: “neither are anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.”  Aha!  Now that makes perfect sense!  Score one for the European Union.

Of course, the failure of Poland and Hungary to be anti-White societies is why the EU is trying to crucify both those nations.  So the full statement would read “Poland before Tusk and Hungary under Orban are not anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.”  True.  Can’t argue with that!

More disturbingly, Soros, even in 1993, saw the world in a crisis that demanded international intervention to promote “open societies”, a.k.a, “anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism”, since it seemed in the post-Soviet period that many countries were continuing to be or reverting to non-open, i.e., “non-Anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism”.  Apparently people didn’t like Jews, even back then.  So here it is:

The Need for Collective Security 

We did not oppose the Soviet Union because it was a closed society, but because it posed a threat to our existence. That threat has now disappeared and it is difficult to justify any kind of intervention—whether it is political, economic or military—on the grounds of national self- interest. It is true that the danger of some kind of nuclear disaster remains, but it concerns the rest of the world at least as much as it concerns us. Therefore, the only basis for action is collective security. And that is where the problem lies. The collapse of the Soviet empire has created a collective security problem of the utmost gravity. Without a new world order, there will be disorder; that much is clear. But who will act as the world’s policeman? That is the question that needs to be answered. Ibid.

What is the “disorder” of which he speaks?  And why is it necessarily a threat to anyone?  Presumably “disorder” means a number of small nations that want to maintain their homogeneity rather than become cosmopolitan market places characterized by policies such as open immigration, multiculturalism pornography, selling drugs, financialization, and promotion of deviant sexual practices.  In order to prevent such “disorder”, something like NATO is needed!

Here is the purported “security” threat that “closed societies” — i.e., democratic, homogeneous nations — pose to NATO:

Closed societies based on nationalist principles constitute a threat to security because they need an enemy, either outside or within. But the threat is very different in character from the one NATO was constructed to confront, and a very different approach is required to combat this threat. It involves the building of democratic states and open societies and embedding them in a structure which precludes certain kinds of behavior. Only in case of failure does the prospect of military intervention arise. The constructive, open society building part of the mission is all the more important because the prospect of NATO members intervening militarily in this troubled part of the world is very remote. Bosnia is ample proof. Ibid.

Note the completely unsupported premise that “closed societies based on nationalistic principles” are “a threat to national security because they need an enemy, either outside or within” — i.e., otherwise homogeneous societies which reject Muslim minorities or Jewish intervention in their morals or life are a security threat that requires NATO intervention!  By the rules of logic, the conclusions drawn from this are incorrect, even if valid, because the premise is unproven and in fact contradicted by history.  A country’s treatment of minorities is not a threat to NATO.  To make it plainer, both the premise and the validity of the conclusion from that premise are wrong.  The premise that closed (read “normal”) societies “need an enemy” is not true (in fact, it is when previously homogeneous societies are forced into becoming “open” — i.e., multi-racial/cultural that internal divisions and violence can arise, of against White majorities); thus the key premise to Soros’ syllogism is false.  Moreover, the conclusion that if a nation does have an internal enemy (let’s assume for a moment this premise is factually true), it poses a threat to all other nations is not a justified conclusion from the premise — i.e., the reasoning from the premise to the conclusion is invalid.  So Soros has concocted a syllogism that is both false and invalid — a neat trick — committing the two cardinal sins of reasoning in one little statement.

The whole Davos / WEF project is based on this extraordinarily weak reasoning.

By creating a crisis where none existed, Soros was (and is) attempting to justify, in effect, a world government.  Note, he does not say that the US will necessarily be the one running this new order — only, presumably, a bunch of international organizations and NGO’s like Soros’ own Open Society foundation.  This also implies that any chance there is to grab onto another event — whether it be a bad flu season, COVID, climate change (or, paradoxically perhaps if that fails, peak oil) to remove power from states to international bodies that will then use their power not so much against the cited threats, but to enforce further, by another turn of the ratchet, Jewish influence over nations — and everything else.

Viewing the otherwise mindless WEF as effectively driven by Soros’ vision, one can better understand the motives of the WEF:  a world run (perhaps indirectly) by Jews and their shabos-goy allies—essentially an international superpower of nasty quangos (quasi-NGOs funded by the government), enforcing certain policies upon every nation on earth (i.e., policies such as enforcing replacement-level immigration, encouragement of homosexuality and transsexuality; prohibition of certain types of historical research related to the holocaust; prohibition of free speech on issues related to diversity).

Note that, apparently, Soros and the WEF (though not the US’s incompetent national security establishment) has concluded that the “closed society is a risk to other nations” argument has not been compelling to anyone outside of the West.  So every year, they create another crisis — COVID, climate change, etc.) to permit the international control that Soros (and the WEF) desires, not to fight the “crisis du jour” but to force “open societies” on all of us.  But the “new” crises are really just an excuse.  The driving goal is exactly the same goal that Soros identified in 1993 — the goal of “open societies” everywhere.

An example of Soros’ current thinking — so insane it would be comical if not for his power — is this, written in anticipation of Ukraine’s much vaunted and, ultimately, failed “counter offensive” in June of 2023:

The countries of the former Soviet empire, eager to assert their independence, can hardly wait for the defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine [presumably, in the counter-offensive, in which, earlier in the article, he predicts Ukrainian victory]. At that point, Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed Russian empire will disintegrate and cease to pose a threat to Europe … and it will allow the world to concentrate on its biggest problem, climate change. Soros, “Updating My Munich Predictions”, March 16, 2023 (emphasis added)

First, the Ukraine war was (until NATO got involved) a localized crisis brought on by NATO’s aggression, not Russia’s.  Second, of course, Soros was totally wrong on the military front.  His memo was written undoubtedly in chop-licking expectation of a successful Ukrainian offensive.  Wiser heads at the same time as Soros’ article was published were instead (correctly) predicting Ukraine’s total defeat in this counter offensive.  They were right.  Ukraine’s army utilized in that effort was destroyed.  Third, once Putin is defeated in the Ukraine he will “cease to pose a threat to Europe”.  Ha!  First, he was not defeated.  Second, even if he had been, Russian history tells us his — and Russia’s — response would not be to create Soros’ anti-White “open society”, but to close further and build the military to such massive levels that such a defeat could never happen again.

And then Soros finishes with his biggest howler:  once Russia “ceases to be a threat”, then “the world will be able to focus on its biggest problem:  climate change”.

Nothing more needs to be said.  Soros should be incarcerated in a mental institution and euthanized.

________________________

1/  Yiddish.  Sorry for the “cultural appropriation” folks.

2/  “Holocaust denial” is factual research on thehHolocaust that comes to the wrong conclusion.

3/  In addition to promoting Jewish supremacy, Soros appears as well, not surprisingly, to be a classic limousine liberal.  Here is his July 31, 2022 missive:

“We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people. That is an injustice that undermines our democracy.”  Soros, “Why I support Reform Prosecutors”, July 31, 2022.George Soros | Why I Support Reform Prosecutors.

This failed point of view — rejected by every serious evolutionary biologist or geneticist in the world — is a classic example of Donald Rumsfeld’s admonition that, when formulating public policy, “Distinguish between problems and facts.  A problem is solvable; a fact cannot be “solved”; instead it must be taken into account in formulating public policy.”

The genetically based low IQ and ultra-high testosterone levels among Blacks is the cause of their ultra-high violence — 10-20 times the White level.  This, in turn — not racism — is the cause of their high incarceration rates.

This contra-factual assertion is not Soros’ creation.  It has been used by Jews for a long time to create massive race trouble in White, Christian societies, and, sadly, it has also been a favorite of leading upper-class White Anglo-Saxon (“WASP”) policy makers.  An example is the eminent and aristocratic WASP Cyrus R. Vance.  After his service as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson (remember Vietnam?), he led countless fruitless and deceptive commissions authorized by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, pointing out that Blacks went to jail more than Whites (hello!) and of course immediately jumping to the conclusion that the law needed to be changed as necessary in order that the incarceration rates of Blacks equal that of Whites in the NYC metropolitan area.  Of course, had Strom Thurmond headed the commission, he might have pointed out that the higher incarceration rate was not a “problem”, but a “fact” with which we had to deal, due to the “fact” of higher Black propensity to crime.  The solution of his committee might have been to re-impose segregation laws to protect the rest of us.

Cyrus Vance of course held a lucrative senior partnership of Wall Street law firm — a virtual money-making machine — and was, better yet, married to an heiress of a major industrial fortune.  He lived with the heiress in their very own town house in one of the best sections of the upper east side of Manhattan, sending their children to expensive private schools such as Buckley and Groton, thence to Yale — certainly not to what the Vances undoubtedly viewed as the proletarian abyss of the New York City public school system.  Oh no.  To that system, the children of his domestic servants and lower-paid associates and mailroom boys at his law firm would go.

Sadly, it is the Cyrus Vances of the WASP world who have become a secondary non-Jewish support network for the Soros types.  This creates, to say the least, an incredibly powerful coalition against the public interest.