I was reading this post here about George Soros, big time propagandist, which details what is allegedly his agenda. It's an interesting list - let's play a game. Good or Bad? I'm sure your views won't be the same as mine, but here:
the Soros agenda:
• promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
Overall good, with the caveat that other nations are generally more oppressive
•promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
Generally bad
•opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
Good
•depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
Good (it's time someone did)
•promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
Promoting freedom of movement OK, promoting mass immigration bad
•promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
Bad
•promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
Bad
•defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abettors
Good
•financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
None of my damn business
•advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
Disarmament bad, cutting spending good
•opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
I lean good on this one
•promoting socialized medicine in the United States
Bad bad bad
•promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is ’not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
Doubleplusungood
•bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
UNspeakably bad
•promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
Truly bad
•promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
Bad
•advocating stricter gun-control measures
Off the scale, crimes-against-humanity bad
•advocating the legalization of marijuana
Good (shame he chickens out on legalising heroin and crack, in my opinion)
I would like to add a few:
- Telling the left they can simultaneously oppose one military atrocity in Iraq, yet defend another identical occupation in Afghanistan
- Promoting pro-Israel, pro-ethnic cleansing views amongst the left wing
- Profiting from others' misfortune to the extent that you can proclaim you are 'having a great crisis' (which you clearly were involved in creating since you saw it coming)
That will do. Did I mention Soros was a Nazi collaborator who pretended to be a Christian during the Holocaust, but at the same time had no problem with serving his more pure masters? Then he was whisked off to Britain, the real global Nazi HQ, straight after the war to be trained as I guess a replacement for Goebbels. A Jewish Nazi. Interesting.
Yes, I agree with all of your answers except the first one and the death penalty one.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has an oppressive government and is a generally depraved nation, but it is institutionally moral and free. Things haven't been going the way they were meant to go.
The death penalty is necessary for those who have committed premeditated murder or rape, IMHO. But, then again, that's just me.
I used to be pro-death penalty, but my recent slant against it occurred to me while I was opposing torture, the logic being that even in a regular prison innocent people get locked up but then are found later to be innocent.
ReplyDeleteLikewise with torture and killing - it's not as if some people don't deserve it but every so often the person on the wrong end of the lethal injection will be innocent. The regretful prospect of even one in fifty innocent deaths to me outweighs the regret of having the most vile people spending a lifetime in a cell.
No, I see what you're saying, America isn't institutionally that way, if you mean strictly based on the Constitution. Although would you say the values of the document were ever completely applied? Perhaps from the Civil war to 1913, although states' rights had been grossly weakened - it's debatable I guess. It's not that I agree entirely with the leftist rewriting of American history, but I kind of lean toward the Howard Zinn point of view about how America was land of the free for some white men, not for everyone.
Though I would add that unlike the typical leftist who uses that idea as an excuse to persist tyranny into the future, I say 'why not do for all people what early America did for some people'?
I am in no way trying to devalue what freedom America acheived and to some extent still has. It is a key step forward in human civilisation. But there is to me a danger of idealising it, of painting over the cracks if you will, which by doing so consigns Old America to the world of fiction and in some ways does it a disservice.
Certainly, some of the ideals (the good ones that we like to remember) that birthed American society deserve to be as 'institutional' as possible, everywhere, for the benefit of all humans. Now that's a NWO I can get behind. :)
Death penalty point well taken.
ReplyDeleteOn America, the fact that the Constitution did not sanction, rather allowed and compensated for slavery shows that, indeed, a piece of the puzzle was missing in the question of Liberty versus Tyranny.
While many wished slavery to be abolished in the newly founded U.S. (Jefferson, for one), many more felt they needed it.
Slavery is that one blot on this continent that no amount of renunciation or restitution will ever redeem.
To attempt such redemption of slavery is pointless, to ignore the history of slavery is dangerous, and to capitalize on it is unfair.
Political correctness, better titled "Whitey Put Us Down", is only perpetuating the harm done by the mistakes of men in the past.
All cultures make mistakes. Call it a birth pang of Free Humanity.
Hey, in that era, with little to no historical precedent, in a world surrounded by global empire powers, to create what your ancestors did was remarkable.
ReplyDeleteI think they looked at slavery as something they couldn't get rid of, much the same way as people look at taxation today. "Yeah, it's theft, but everyone does it so it would be impossible not to" (I think taxation may one day be looked upon in a similar manner as slavery by future historians)
In the long run, feudalism is still the enemy, but thankfully an enemy that people have progressively weakened over the last 1000 years. Though like a serpent you can't kill, it just keeps coming back in different forms...