The subjects covered in this blog include, Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc. - Paul Austin Murphy

This blog once bore the name 'EDL Extra'. I supported the EDL until 2012. As the reader will see, the last post which supports the EDL dates back to 2012. This blog, nonetheless, retains the former web address.

Friday, 16 June 2017

George Soros on Soros and America



In the words of the “political pundit” Matt Welch (writing in 2003), George Soros “has a long and storied track record of being all villains to all people”. This same writer also finds something that's a little worrying and self-contradictory about many of these portrayals of the billionaire “villain”. For example, he concludes by saying the following:

Thus we now have the spectacle of one of the world's most active and influential anti-communists (not to mention one of its most successful capitalists) being tarred as a particularly dangerous friend of Marx and Lenin.”

On the surface it seems that it is indeed a contradiction to portray someone as being both an “anti-communist” and a “particularly dangerous friend of Marx and Lenin”. (Or it would be if the same person said it.) Surely Soros can't be both. Yet it's George Soros we're talking about here! Thus, as a billionaire villain, surely he can be both a communist and an anti-communist! Or at least he can play both characters at different times to different people. This kind of thing has happened many times before with other people. So why not with George Soros? What's to stop Soros from being an anti-communist on Monday and a friend of Marx and Lenin on Friday? After all, it will be seen in the following that not only does Soros contradict himself in terms of his own deeds (which has often been commentated upon), he also contradicts himself in terms of his own words.

Soros has written many books. He's said a lot of things. Much of what I've read is sophisticated and of interest; and that's despite what's just been said about Soros's contradictory words. I was particularly impressed with Soros's George Soros on Globalization; though, even here, the fact that he uses his own name in the title shows us that we're also dealing with a very vain man.

The fact that some of his writings are sophisticated isn't a surprise. Or at least it shouldn't be a surprise. Even the people who hate him “with a perfect hate” must admit that a villain can also be highly intelligent. Indeed to be both a billionaire and a global political actor must require intelligence and even wisdom. (A few people - who look down on moneymaking - deny all this.) Quite frankly, I'm fairly impressed by the expertise of Soros's ideas. That's not to say that I agree with a single sentence he's uttered or written. It's simply to say that he may not be a cartoon baddie. Or, if he is a cartoon baddie, then he's one who can be fairly convincing when he sets pen to paper.

**************************************

It can be said George Soros's following words would provide a perfect opening for his autobiography:

Well, you know, I was a human being before I became a businessman.”

Having said that, Soros then went on to admit that he “used to be opposed to the idea of social entrepreneurship”. So was that after he became a “human being” again? Whatever the case, Soros “now recognize[s] that actually you do need to mix it up [business and morality] and I think there is room for social entrepreneurship”.

In a similar vein, George Soros is often honest about himself (at least up to a point). He's therefore honest about his own conceit. For example, he claims to be “primarily interested in ideas” and that he doesn't “have much personal use for money”. He then goes on to say:

But I hate to think what would have happened if I hadn't made money: My ideas would not have gotten much play.”

That's Soros admitting that having a hell of a lot of money is a very good way of gaining political power – which, of course, it is. Certain “ideas” too can be a means to political power. Or, as Soros himself puts it, if he weren't a billionaire, his “ideas would not have gotten much play”.

This honesty (or is it game-playing?) also comes into show when he admits to suffering from “fallibility”. As a consequence of this, he also claims to be adept at self-criticism. Not only that: Soros believes that these frames of mind are very productive – both politically and financially. In his own words:

I am a very critical person who looks for defects in myself as well as in others. But, being so critical, I am also quite forgiving. I couldn't recognize my mistakes if I couldn't forgive myself.”

As I said, there's an honest vanity being proudly displayed here. Indeed Soros has what some psychologists or moral philosophers would see as a self-contradictory personality.

For example, in one breath he says that he admits to “being wrong” and “fallible”. In the next breath he says that this is a “source of pride”. Thus he's proud of his being wrong and self-critical. (Or, at the least, he's proud of finding these things within himself.) To us mere mortals, on the other hand, being wrong and fallible is a “source of shame”. That means that being wrong and fallible are only bad things if we “fail[] to correct our mistakes”.

Thus, in the end, Soros is “quite forgiving” of himself. Indeed that forgiving nature itself leads to positive and beneficial personal and even (politically) global ends.

Soros gets even more vainglorious when he tell us that he wishes that he “could write a book that will be read for as long as our civilization lasts”. And if he managed that, he

would value it much more highly than any business success if I could contribute to an understanding of the world in which we live”.

This kind of conceit and moral grandstanding can be found everywhere in Soros's words and writings. Take this piece of embarrassing autobiography:

I have devoted half my fortune and most of my energies in the last 15 years to promoting the values of democracy and open society all over the world... I came to feel that those principles need to be defended at home.”

So how, exactly, does Soros intend to “defend” his “principles” in the United States? By financing Black Lives Matter and the Democrats, for example? (See this article on Soros's funding of Black Lives Matter.)

Soros on America

George Soros is deeply anti-American. Of course he would strongly deny that he is. Indeed he does deny it in his writings and interviews. Though this is because his personal America - America as he wants it to be - isn't what he's against. What he's against is America as it is and has been.

For example, Soros (as everyone knows) is very anti-Trump. He was also anti-George W. Bush. Soros (as everyone also knows) wasn't anti-Obama. Why? Because Obama's America squared fairly well with Soros's own America. Then again, Soros still believed that Obama didn't go far enough. He'd have needed more terms in office to go far enough.

Not that Soros is critical of America in precisely the same ways that, say, juvenile Marxists or progressives are critical. In other words, Soros's position is far more sophisticated than typical (Leftist) anti-Americanism; even if it's the case that he's very happy to fund and support many groups and individuals who take an extremely unsophisticated - and indeed violent - approach to America.

Soros was at his most extreme on America (in 2006) when he said the following:

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. This is a harsh — indeed, for me, painful — thing to say, but unfortunately I am convinced it is true.”

Typically (for Soros) he qualifies his anti-Americanism with that grandstanding central clause: “This is a harsh — indeed, for me, painful — thing to say...” Yet if you genuinely believe that the United States is the “main obstacle to a stable and just world order”, you may wonder how genuinely “painful” it would be for Soros “to say” all that.

Soros also offers his very own solutions to the painful problem that is America. This also explains why he funds numerous groups and individuals who and which are intent on destroying America as we know it. He says:

Changing the attitude and policies of the United States remains my top priority.”

Is that, then, why he funds Black Lives Matter? Is Soros “changing the attitude and policies of the United States” by funding Black Lives Matter? Why not? This group - amongst the many other extreme groups he funds - also wants to change the United States. Indeed the activist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), as another example, wants to change America by any means necessary. (See the link between BAMN and Soros in this article.) And considering Soros' s huge influence, he too wants to change America by any means necessary. Indeed he even comes very close to stating that himself.


Another Angry Voice




.... “savage right-wing bias”,  "a pathetically tasteless bit of right-wing victim complex crying”, “outright lie”, “absolutely outrageous stuff”, “lies and deliberately distorting and misrepresenting", "despicable website”, “no outrage in the mainstream media”, “deliberate lying and sick emotional manipulation from the head of a right-wing news outlet”, “hacks at the Daily Telegraph (a right-wing propaganda sheet”, “hard-right Guido Fawkes blog”, “were always extremely right-wing”, “a hard-right blog”, “outright derision as despicable gutter press”, “savagely dishonest hard-right attack rag as their tabloid bedfellows in the gutter press”, “lazily churnalised an extreme-right blog post”, “hypocritical and outrageously lazy Daily Telegraph hacks”, “right-wing purveyors of fake news”, “the Economist (the in-house magazine for neoliberals)”...



***********************************************************

Much has been made (see here, here and here) of the ubiquitous snobbery against all non-socialists (except ethnic minorities) which we face nowadays. Some of this can be see in the obsessively pro-Corbyn blog called Another Angry Voice. This is a Corbynite groupuscule (made up of the blogger and his loyal defenders/commentators) of particular virulence, aggression and, yes, snobbery

The disgusting and patronising snobbery of left-wingers (usually from middle-class people aimed at the entire white right-wing working class) just gets worse and worse. And there's not much discernment in it either – all the very many “enemies of the people” are subhuman. I'm surprised I wasn't victim of the well-used term “knuckle-dragger” from these particularly pompous snobs.

In any case, for an “English teacher” (as stated in his 'About the Author'), Another Angry Voice (AAV) is “full of hate”. This blogger is indeed a fully-fledged "hater". Unless, of course, it's logically impossible for a Corbynite or socialist to be full of hate.

The blogger of AAV is called Thomas G. Clark.  


Those Evil (Non-Socialist) Old People!

Another Angry Voice snobbery isn't just aimed at the “far Right” and evil “Tories”: old-age pensioners get it in the ear too.

In one article ('Bridging the Generational Divide') is was talk of the “cognitive impairment” of the old. (Or at least the old who aren't socialists or fans of Corbyn.) The blogger and his resident whores, of course, claimed otherwise; though that was only after the shit had hit the fan. Part of that shit was thrown by fellow Corbynites who didn't like AAV's snooty arrogance vis-a-vis old people.


One Leftist snoot said it was all down to the “data and facts”. He talked about “basic Gaussian distribution data” and the fact that you couldn't argue with such a highly technical thing – even when aimed at old people. So I said that I was very impressed. Very impressed! Of course I wasn't impressed at all. The blogger wasn't really interested in “basic Gaussian distribution data”. He was interested in making a point about right-wing “cognitive impairment”. But the commentator already knew that. His grandstanding use of technical terms was prize bullshit.

The ostensible position advanced in this blog post, according to commentators, was simple: older people become “cognitively impaired”. And that's why AAV wrote:

"The older people get on average, the more gullible they are, the crapper their mathematical abilities, the more they're likely to over-estimate their own expertise, and the more attracted to right-wing authoritarian leaders they become."

If Thomas G. Clark (the name of the AAV blogger) hadn't mentioned the word "right-wing" on more than one occasion in the blog post, I might well have agreed. This blog post wasn't about old people becoming “cognitively impaired”; as they claimed in retrospect. It was about “Tory voters” - and very probably all other kinds of rightwing people - becoming cognitively impaired. Talk of “statistical facts being facts” simply evaded the point. AAV is a political blog. Why else would Thomas G. Clarke be covering such topics if he didn't have a political slant on them?

Finally, after an arrogant, hateful and condescending blog post about the cognitive impairment of old people, one commentator had the nerve to call me a "condescending prick".

The Mainstream Media

Like most Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and all Marxist socialists, AAV has a serious problem with what he/it calls – taken mainly from Chomsky's words - “the mainstream media”.

It's bizarre. Many on the Right criticise the Media (with a capital 'M'). Most of the Left do too. Is the media really such a massive and uniform cesspool of uniformity? Or do people simply get frustrated and angry when they hear/read opinions they don't like? Besides which, most people don't rely on a single newspaper (or a single news-outlet) any more – not in the age of the Internet. One commentator on AAV agreed; though only after previously frothing at the mouth about the MSM. He said that “the printed press itself is becoming less relevant with every passing year”. Then what was the nature of his former problems? Though if one thinks that the whole damn show is biased in one direction, then only those who miraculously escape false consciousness (or "media brainwashing") will be free of mind.

You see, every Corbynista is profoundly intelligent, sophisticated and never suffers from any "cognitive impairment". I wonder how they all do it. What would I need to do to have True Consciousness? What does it take? Read AAV everyday? Or is reading The Canary, Chomsky or Marx every day the answer? Whatever the solution, I bet it doesn't involve one echo chamber (a left-wing one) being put in the place of another echo chamber (a right-wing one). Leftists are far too intelligent to get trapped in any echo chamber (such as Another Angry Voice).

So does every one of us Naziracistfascistneoliberal bigots – the vast number of us - suffer from false consciousness? Marxist socialists probably think that we do! This is, of course, monumentally patronising; though the idea of false consciousness (or being "brainwashed by the media") has under-girded Marxist-socialist theory since the 1850s. And you wonder why so many people in the U.K. (i.e., millions) hate Marxists and find them condescending snobs.

In any case, what about the Guardian, New Statesman, the Mirror, Red Pepper, The Canary, etc.? Sure, they aren't as Leftist-than-thou; though they are Left or at least Liberal-Left. (Yes, I know, True Leftists call the Guardian and Independent “neoliberal - thus showing their extreme colours.) Do these Corbynites really want the entire media to be socialist? Is that at the heart of Another Angry Voice? They must know that they'll never have a Marxist socialist version of the Sun. Why is that? Because the vast number of people find Marxist/socialist news 'n' theory boring and often false.

In terms of detail, AAV shouted:

"Is there anything as hypocritical as a claim of political bias from the Daily Mail?"

Yes there is: a claim of political bias from a Corbynite, Corbyn, Chomsky, the Guardian, The Canary, Red Pepper, etc...

It's best to be honest about one's political biases anyway. And that includes the Daily Mail and left-wing outlets. That means that you shouldn't adopt the left-wing "no platform" policy or refuse to debate. It also means that it's silly to claim that your (political) view is a View From Nowhere.

This Marxist-socialist critique of the media was made explicit by one commentator on AAV. He wrote:

Some people adopt ideological perspectives that militate against their class interests... it's fairly obvious... that membership of a particular social class means that someone will be more likely to lean towards a certain ideological perspective.”

That simply assumes that the Marxist theory of “class interests” is (entirely) true and legitimate. The assumption is that a working class person voting for the Tories, Ukip or any non-socialist is voting against his “class interest”. I would say that voting for middle-class Marxists - and for middle class Marxist ideas/values - would be voting against his own class interests, and for many reasons.

The same commentator said that membership of a class means that “someone will be more likely to lean towards a certain ideological perspective”. Again, does that also apply to the legions of middle-class and upper-middle-class Marxists?

If the Marxist theory of “class interests” were so simple and absolute, then the very many middle-class and indeed upper-middle-class people (this especially applies to Trotskyists) who've been Marxists over the last 100 years would also speak their class interests. So would Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Murray, Seumas Milne and the other public-schoolboys and girls who lead the Stop the War Coalition, etc. How do socialists and Marxists escape class interests? Simply by reading Marxists?

No one exclusively – and sometimes not at all (as Marxists claim about themselves) – serves his class interests. This is an extremely deterministic Marxist theory. The theory (as Marx himself acknowledged) is primarily designed to further the revolution and bring about "class war". It has very little truth to it.

This commentator also said:

They are, however, overwhelmingly the ideological perspectives that get represented in the printed media.”

Certain “ideological perspectives” are bound to get represented in the printed media. How could it be otherwise? Would this Corbynite complain if that ideological perspective were Marxist socialism? Indeed would he complain if the entire media was Marxist-socialist; as in the Soviet Union, Mao's China and all other socialist regimes?

Finally:

I think the reality is that because the printed media are dominated by large private capital, they, whether liberal or conservative*, are inevitably imbued with an ideological bias that reflects the class interests of those who own them.”

Have Marxist socialists ever thought that these ideological perspectives are sometimes believed because they are believed – that is, after critical thinking, etc. of the sort, presumably, socialists are capable of? Sometimes the platonic Media reflects people's views, rather than only determines them. Even in right-wing newspapers, sometimes journalists or commentators argue against aspects of capitalism; not for them. Indeed sometimes the Telegraph, for one, has allowed people to put the socialist perspective.

AAV Against Islamic Terrorism?

It's very strange hearing socialists and Another Angry Voice talk about the Tories being “weak on terrorism”. Specifically, their bone of contention was the “underfunding of the police”. The article is called '13 questions the mainstream media should be asking about Salman Abedi'. Thomas G. Clark (AAV) said:

... Salman Abedi.... repeatedly reported to authorities for by other members of the Manchester Muslim community too.”

When Muslims are reported to the authorities, what do you think Leftists/socialists usually do? They scream blue murder! They shout about “Islamophobia” and the “victimisation of the Muslim community”. Then posh Trotskyist lawyers get to work frustrating the evil machinations of "the capitalist state". Muslims too talk about “demonisation” and “Islamophobia”.

This article, then, is not about fighting terrorism. It's about campaigning for Corbyn by attacking the Tories.

The blogger even had the audacity to say:

So much for the extreme-right mantra that 'Muslims should do more to root out terrorists'!...”

How many times was he reported? And if all radical Islamists (hundreds of them) are reported by fellow Muslims and others at the same time, wouldn't there be overload? Here again, Leftist activists will start to scream. The authorities, in other words, are scared to take action against radical Muslims because radical socialists make it such hard and controversial work.

There is more hypocrisy:

The next damning revelation was that the UK secret services were tipped off in January 2017 by the Americans that Abedi was actively planning an act of terrorism.”

It's not often that one hears a Corbynite or a Marxist socialist stressing the importance of listening to the Americans on matters of terrorism. Then again, there was an election coming up when this was stated. Thus Corbyn's red end justified the means.

One may now ask if AAV believes in “open borders”. Or was that last week (i.e., before the election)? Corbyn believes in open borders – if not always explicitly. Most Corbyn activists believe in open borders too. Open borders and the arrival of thousands of terrorists will be an interesting problem for Corbyn to sort out. I wonder how he'll solve it.

Now, after the election, perhaps socialists and the supporters of Corbyn will get back to frustrating every action against Islamic terrorism and extremism – something they're very good at. Corbyn has already said that the Evil West is entirely to blame; as do the Islamic terrorists themselves.


***********************************************

Is this the Another Angry Voice blogger, Thomas. G. Clark? He's a professor at Sheffield University by the name of Dr. Tom Clark. I have many reasons for believing it's him: including where he lives, what he studies, his politics, the fact that well-paid professors have a lot of spare time, who he's connected to, etc. Though I'll get back with conclusive confirmation soon: 






***************************************

By the way, here's a list of Leftist news-outlets and websites (some alive, some now dying):

Weekly:

New Statesman – independent political and cultural magazine.
The New Worker – from the New Communist Party of Britain.
The Socialist – from the Socialist Party (England and Wales).
Socialist Worker – from the Socialist Workers Party.
Sunday Mirror – sister newspaper to Daily Mirror, published every Sunday.
Weekly Worker – from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee).
Solidarity – from the Alliance for Workers' Liberty.

Fortnightly:

Scottish Socialist Voice – from the Scottish Socialist Party.
Socialist Appeal – from the British section of the International Marxist Tendency.
Tribune – democratic socialist Labour movement newspaper, with Labour Party connections.

Monthly:

Labour Briefing – from the Labour Representation Committee.
New Internationalist – independent activist magazine.
Socialism Today – from the Socialist Party (England and Wales).
Socialist Review – from the Socialist Workers Party.
Socialist Standard – from the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Workers' Fight - from the British section of Internationalist Communist Union.

Bi-monthly:

Chartist – connected to the Labour Party.
Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! - from the Revolutionary Communist Group.
Lalkar – formerly the journal of the Indian Workers' Association, now independent, but sympathetic to the CPGB (ML).
New Left Review – independent New Left journal.
Peace News – independent pacifist magazine "for nonviolent revolution".
Proletarian – from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist).
Red Pepper – independent, appeared monthly from 1994, relaunched as a bi-monthly in 2007.
Scottish Left Review – independent magazine.
Socialist Resistance – from the International Socialist Group and Socialist Solidarity Network.
Workers – from the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist).

Quarterly:

Anticipations – the Young Fabians' journal.
Ceasefire Magazine – independent magazine.
Challenge – from the Young Communist League.
Communist Review – from the Communist Party of Britain.
In Defence of Marxism – from the International Marxist Tendency.
International Socialism – from the Socialist Workers Party.
rs21 – from Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century.
Socialist Studies – from Socialist Studies.
Workers' Hammer – from the Spartacist League.
World Revolution – from World Revolution.

Tri-annually:

Capital & Class – from the Conference of Socialist Economists.

Bi-annually:

Organise! – from the Anarchist Federation.
Revolutionary Perspectives – from the Communist Workers Organisation.

Annually:

Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory – independent Marxist journal.

Then there's the blogs:


ALL BLOGS (ALPHABETICAL)

21st Century Manifesto
33 Revolutions per Minute
100 Miles from the Sea
a better nhs
A Green Trade Unionist in Bristol
A Latent Existence
All That Is Solid
Anarch*ish*
Another Angry Voice
Another Angry Woman
Another Green World
Another Rant
A Thousand Flowers
Ayes to the Left
Bella Caledonia
Benefit Scrounging Scum
Black Activists Rising Against Cuts
Black Triangle
Boffy's Blog
Bright Green
Capitalism Creates Poverty
Caroline Lucas
Celyn
Chartist
Class
Collective Invective
Compass
Cost of Living
Country Standard
Dan Hancox
Dave Brinson
Dave Watson
Disabled People Against Cuts
Disillusioned Marxist
Dissent Dispatched
Dream Housing
Ducksoap
Electoral Reform Society
Fabian Society
FairDeals4theProletariat
False Economy
Fitwatch
For a Fair Society
George Monbiot
Green Left
Green Party Trade Union Group
Greenpeace
Hannah Mitchell Foundation
Hatful of History
Housmans Blog
Ian's Unite Site
Ian Manborde
Izzy Koksal
J-Voice
Jane Watkinson
Jason E Cooper
Jews Sans Frontieres
Jim Jepps
Jon's union blog
Jon Worth
Kate Belgrave
LabourLeft
LabourList
Left Foot Forward
Left Futures
Left Gleaning
Left Unity
Lenin's Tomb
libcom
Liberal Conspiracy
Life on Wheels
lipstick socialist
Lisybabe
London Antifascists
London Green Left
London Radical Bookfair
London Socialist Film Co-op
Look Left
Mabinogogiblog
Madam Miaow Says
Manchester Mule
March The Fury
Marxist World
Michael Greenwell
NetPoliticsBlog
new economics foundation
No comment
Noel Lynch
No Fixed Abode Anti-Fascists
Notes from a Broken Society
Oliver James Opinion
OpenDemocracy
Organized Rage
Paul Mason
Penny Red
People's Republic of Southwark
Peter Cranie
Peter Kenyon
Philobiblon
Pieria
Platform
Political Scrapbook
Politics Plus with Nick Venedi
Power in a Union
Pride's Purge
Psephology from the Periphery
Radical Independence Campaign
Radical Wales
Random Blowe
Reading Marx
Red Flag Walks
redgreenblob
Red Pepper
Richie Venton
Rick Coyle
rs21
Salman Shaheen
Scarlet Standard
Scriptonite Daily
Shiraz Socialist
sian and crooked rib
Socialist Health Association
Socialist Unity
Steve's Ramblings
Stumbling and Mumbling
Tax Research UK
Tea and Solidarity
Tendance Coatesy
theabsoluteknave
The Bemolution Will Not Be Televised
The Canary
The Daily Cameron
The Ecosocialist
The Files of Mason Dixon, Autistic
The F Word
The Green Benches
The Industrial Reporter
The Marxist Minx
The People's Assembly
The Project
There Is No Alternative
The Skwawkbox
The Socialist Way
The Third Estate
The Vagenda
The Void
the way i see things
Though Cowards Flinch
Thoughts on What's Afoot
Tony Wilson's Union Blog
Too Much To Say For Myself
ToUChstone blog
Transition Culture
Trevor Chaplin
Two Left Feet
Uckfield Labour
UK Uncut
Unions Together
Viridis Lumen
Vox Political
Welsh Labour Grassroots
Wembley Matters
What Is To Be Done?
Where's the Benefit?
Whisky and Tea
William Morris Unbound


... I suppose this is where socialists say that the above still isn't enough. It won't be enough until there is a socialist version of the Sun or when every newspaper is controlled by a socialist state under the control of, say, Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.