|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last week, I wrote about the ins and outs of the Soros Succession in which George is handing over control over his political empire to a younger son, Alex.
George Soros has become infamous for his grandiose political network and its ambitious global plans. There are signs that Alex Soros is a more conventional and less out-of-the-box thinker than his father.
And then there’s the age factor.
The elder Soros was at an age where he needed to build a legacy, Alex Soros is 37 and isn’t watching the clock. There are signs that he’s retooling Soros Inc. to a more reasonable size and scope.
The grant-making network founded by far-left kingmaker George Soros plans to gut staffing by at least 40% in the coming months.
Open Society Foundations — which earlier this month confirmed the 92-year-old progressive billionaire was handing control of his empire over to his 37-year-old son Alexander — confirmed through a spokesperson there will be “significant changes” to its operating model, including “a substantial reduction in headcount of no less than 40% globally,” Bloomberg News reported…
“The board aims to transform operations across the global network, with the goal of generating a nimbler organization,” said a statement by the younger Soros and the nonprofit’s president Mark Malloch-Brown. “While Open Society works on these internal changes, the board remains firmly committed to the foundations’ core priorities — democracy, human rights, climate justice, and addressing inequity.”
Is any of this good news for conservatives? Probably not.
As I wrote in the Soros Succession, Alex Soros is likely to oversee a more conventional Democrat network. That means he won’t take the kind of big ambitious bets that led to things like the Secretary of State Project of the Democracy Alliance which proved quite effective for lefties and disastrous for conservatives.
But it also means he’s likely to shift away resources from the global stage (I suspect Alex cares a whole lot less about Germany or Hungary, or most of the world, than his dad) to focus more on American politics. For Jews, there’s an added misfortune. Alex, unlike his older half-brothers, is Jewish and identifies as such. He’s going to go on investing in leftist organizations aimed at going after and corrupting the Jewish community, rather than just anti-Israel groups like his father.
On the plus side, the global footprint of Soros Inc is likely to shrink, the American one may grow and be more directly aligned with Democrat priorities.
Alex Soros has said he’s more political than his father. By that he means he’s more invested in the Democrats. The Democrats will enjoy more Soros resources, but benefit from fewer of George Soros’ big visionary schemes.
So George is 92. Getting up there. Even if he is still alive, at that age basic functioning can be quite difficult in itself.
Yes. He seems healthy and mentally acute for such an advanced age. His evil nature is unaffected, of course.
We Christians are told not to grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9). But evil has an unwearying character. I wish that were not true.
I don’t know about “conservatives”, whatever that imprecise, umbrella term, may mean but those Americans who are fighting for freedom, liberty, and their personal, individual, and self-interested, pursuit of happiness on Earth, in other words Laissez-Faire Capitalism, will benefit when an Objectivist George Soros appears on the historical scene.
Religious Jews and Christians on the Right who interpret their religions as actually championing freedom, liberty, and the personal pursuit of happiness on Earth, i.e., Laissez-Faire Capitalism, will have to at the very least embrace the Objectivist defense of rights if only for strategic reasons.
This phenomenon has already happened here at FPM with “Kynarion Hellenis” who thanked me at one point for helping her understand how important it is to distinguish between altruism and rational selfishness. She is still a Christian and she attacks me relentlessly, but that Objectivist idea has been planted in a Christian mind, it’s up to that mind to figure out how she will resolve the conflict between the altruist Gospel of Christ and rational selfishness. But that’s the way Ayn Rand envisioned her philosophy influencing America and the West.
I still thank you for engaging with me as I sought to understand your objectivism. Yes, you helped me understand the difference between altruism and selfishness. Yes, you helped me understand your objectivism – something I desired to do. You broke off engaging with me when you would not agree to dictionary definitions of “reason” in preference for your own word meanings. And you fail to give a single example of that which would cause Christianity to crumble: That faith is a means to knowledge (it is never this); and Christianity is based upon altruism (it is not).
It is your efforts to enlighten me that have caused me to come to the conclusions about your beliefs and the manner in which you defend them. I am not a genius, but I can think fairly well and I see the fatal flaws in your reasoning and your unwillingness to engage in rational discussion. The fatal flaws of logic and your unwillingness to engage without your word-twisting definitions has caused me to pity you.
There are some who may not engage very deeply with your presuppositions. There is quite a lot of good in objectivism, but it is borrowed good which it cannot produce without Christianity. Indeed, as the west loses its Christian faith and principles, voices like yours vie for preeminence. You do not see the death and misery in your religion, but it is not new. It is old and has already been tried to much ill effect.
And I hope for you, THX. Because you are not lukewarm, but passionate. My pity is moved sometimes by love for you – a love you do not understand and which will immediately repulse you. And so I give you the wound of a friend to counter the enemy kisses you embrace. See Proverbs 27:6. Unfortunately, it may be that I am increasing your condemnation.
Yes, dork boy Alex will streamline the Soros political machine and make it more effective at supporting the Dirtbagocrat party and sabotaging America.
Isn’t Malloch as Mark Malloch-Brown another name for satan?
Molech was / is a satanic deity. There are variations in spelling. Satan himself has several names. Lucifer means light bearer / bringer – a name used as a moniker here. He was unexcelled in beauty at one time.
The paganism rapidly descending upon us worships such as these. Some branches even use the ancient names. There are websites you can go to to learn more, but delving too deeply is a huge dose of twisted ugliness to the soul.
“Malloch” is probably the Hungarian spelling of “Moloch.”
The left today makes Moloch look like a piker.
I read some about the Carthaginians. They actually tossed babies onto those outstretched hands of the Moloch statues, who then rolled down into the fire.