The open society and its enemy

Source: The Spectator

George Soros has donated $1 million to a campaign to legalise cannabis in California. The Guardian reports (see here for a comment):

The cash infusion, one week before Californians vote on a measure that would let anyone over 21 grow and possess up to an ounce of marijuana and allow local councils to tax sales of the drug, marks the first major investment by Soros in the mid-term elections.

For several years now, the billionaire Soros has been effectively bankrolling the global campaign for the legalisation of drugs through his Open Society organisation. His influence in undermining western understanding of the crucial role of the law in containing the terrible individual and social effects of illegal drugs cannot be overestimated. But this in turn is but one aspect of the astonishing influence Soros has bought for himself in undermining key cultural building blocks of western society. This important speech delivered a few days ago in the US by Srdja Trifkovic laid out the details:

Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for

  • Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
  • Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”

Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”

And of course, let us not forget Trifkovic dissects what lies behind all this:

Soros’s vision is hostile even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. His core belief—that traditional morality, faith, and community based on shared memories are all verboten—is at odds even with the classical “open society” liberalism of Popper and Hayek, by whom he swears. His hatred of religion is the key. He promotes an education system that will neutralize any lingering spiritual yearnings of the young, and promote the loss of a sense of place and history already experienced by millions of Westerners, whether they are aware of that loss or not. Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, millions of Westerners are already on the path of alienation that demands every imaginable form of self-indulgence, or else leads to drugs, or suicide, or conversion to Islam or some other cult.

To understand Soros it is necessary to understand globalization as a revolutionary, radical project. In the triumph of liberal capitalism, the enemies of civilization such as Soros have found the seeds of future victory for their paradigm that seeks to eradicate all traditional structures capable of resistance. The revolutionary character of the Open Society project is revealed in its relentless adherence to the mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality. His goal is a new global imperium based that will be truly totalitarian.

Few understand what an enormous and hideously destructive impact this one man has had on western and European societies. Soros is not just the man who famously (or infamously) broke the Bank of England through currency speculation a few years back. Through his billions he has been steadily reshaping western society to fit his own deeply questionable beliefs. Chilling.


  1. Is there an Orthodox position on the “medical use” of marijuana? What about the legalization of drugs as a theory to curb the drug cartels?

  2. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    No Orthodox position on the medical use of marijuana as far as I know. But common sense would guide it I think if it ever became an issue. If some derivative chemicals were beneficial for ameliorating sickness, there wouldn’t be any moral reason not to use it. This, of course, is not the real reason why “medical marijuana” proponents are pushing the issue. They just want legal intoxication.

    No position on regulating hard drugs either.

  3. I assumed so. Not that the Church needs an official stand. And I have learned the hard way that some of our “liberty minded folk” seem to have mixed up the terms: Libertarian and Libertine. The former requires a set of morals in order to respect others’ Life, Liberty, and Happiness, while the latter requires that you trash respect for self or others at all costs.

    But on the theory that legalizing drugs to curb cartel violence due to drug trafficking – I was speaking to an Estonian friend of mine who is huge proponent of the free-market system. Estonia seems to be bucking the trends of the EU.

    He believes that the theory that “violence will end with legalization” is a very scant and that trends show that these same cartels move on to other forms of illegal and evil activities like human trafficking, child labor, among other. Does this mean we legalize these as well?

  4. What poor alternatives we face. Either legalize drug induced intoxication and enable many to die young at great expense but avoid the false ‘narco-drug’ economy. Or on the other hand battle on as presently in the cat-and-mouse mode.

    What would taking the opium money away from the Afgani taliban be worth in reduced military life lost and spending? An end to drug-financed gang-bangers. The expense is warehouses full of people taking drugs in ‘safe environments’ and developing illnesses related to habitual opiates and dying young.

    So many problems would fade into history if only a miedcation or implant or surgery was found that eliminiated the both the chemically induced false euphoria and the all too real dysphoria the hooked feel when trying to get away.

    I wonder, what is the ‘war on drugs’ spending on research into that sort of thing?

  5. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Harry, if the addiction to a drug could be broken by something that could nullify the euphoria, the addict would simply seek out another drug. The addiction can’t be broken without some kind of interior conversion, and even then it remains a struggle to stay clean. I think drugs are like pornography — something you have to keep out of the mainstream as much as possible. Once accepted, it leads to all sorts of corruption. Maybe gambling is the same way. The generation preceding ours seems to have understood that better than ours does.

  6. Father – how do we keep “addictive stuff” out of the mainstream without that vehicle then one day keeping us out of the mainstream?

    Where does our self-control, discipline, discernment come in? And mind you I am speaking as someone with none of these attributes?

  7. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    When culture gets turned right-side-up again and you don’t have the anti-heroes elevated as heroes. That happens when deviance is seen as deviant instead of normal.

  8. I believe each of us has from moment to moment some total force of will and spiritual resources to muster against adverse pressures. I think there should be more work done in biochemistry to remove such aspects of those pressures that have a physical basis. Drugs themselves have no moral agenda, they have such biochemical effects as they have. Just as anti-biotics can halt a blinding variety of bacterias, I believe there is a drug out there that will remove whatever physical aspects of ‘craving’ there are, as well as the physcial aspects of withdrawal-sickness. That makes the playing field ‘level’ so that those of us with more modest force of will and spiritual resources will not be overmatched. That is to say, lesser spiritually gifted mortals with good intentions can ‘win’ if they don’t have to overcome memories of being high and biochemical craving as well.

    Certainly without the will to improve improvement will not come. But I think what chemistry can cause, chemistry can certainly more substaintially address than it has to date. I think the real core of the problem is our society is not structured to reward expensive development of drugs that will not be taken for a lifetime. It’s a real problem.

  9. cynthia curran :

    I’ve read that even Democrtaic poltiicans are going against the law since the results of Medicine Pot cause a spike in usage. Jerry Brown who probably is going to be governor of the State a third time opposed it, so the pot heads in California and this is about a 3rd generation problem in that state since Pot first became popular there back in the 1960’s don’t even have many democratic politicians supporting it, so its a losing game.

  10. Seems that Prop 203 to Legalize Mary-J in Arizona is also funded by Mr. Soros.

    Also, I have been doing some research. It is very difficult to vote for Libertarians since most have bought into the nonsense that Liberty measn pro-Choice.

    I guess the Life part in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is just for show. I had such high hopes for Libertarians…..

  11. cynthia curran :

    That’s true about Arizona but since Brewer and MCcain are going to win I doubt that Mary-J will win in Arizona. Granted, there are seom Repubs for them that will support it but usually more of the Dems and the Libertarians support legalization.

Care to Comment?