/qresearch/ - Q Research★

Soros is audacious. Just start with the title of this book: “The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power”. The title is based on a metaphor, of a sort which Soros calls a “fertile fallacy”, but which is in reality a kind of arbitrary conceit.

“Bubbles” in markets are periods of growth where perceived values develop a momentum beyond what the actual value of the commodities can support. Once such bubbles grow to a certain size, the momentum breaks down, and values plummet: the bubble bursts. In market-speak, this bursting is known as A CORRECTION. So, Soros applies this concept to “American Supremacy”. Now, this is a stupid metaphor. The interaction between state power and public opinion is not at all similar to the behavior of markets. But first and foremost, this idea of the bubble is used, in the title, to mask the towering arrogance of Soros. “…Correcting the Misuse of American Power”-- this conjures images of a scolding authority figure; and of course, the authority figure is Soros, and the naughty schoolboy is “American Power”. But, Soros can claim, he is just using the term “correcting” in the sense of his market-bubble-metaphor. But that isn't how the term is used in markets! Nobody talks about “correcting the market”, as if this is something SOMEONE does…. A correction is an organic SOCIAL phenomenon, done by “the invisible hand”, to use Adam Smith's classic metaphor. So Soros is playing games with words, and barely masking the hubris of his attitude. Soros wants to be the invisible hand that “corrects” American power…

This book was published in 2004, putatively as Soros' plea to American voters to reject Bush. The first part of the book focuses on Soros' interpretation of what's wrong with what Bush's America was doing. And one thing this discussion puts in sharp focus is the extremely dubious nature of the whole “neoconservative movement” of that era. This “movement”, in my opinion, was a woefully flimsy veneer placed over a policy of pure rapacity. And Soros certainly knew it. But he tells us that “Bush is an ideologue”. And the “ideology” of neoconservatism is, approximately “we are the most powerful state, and we can and should spread our values and way of life, and we believe we should therefore flex our military muscle to do so”, or something like that. The problem with this as an “ideology” is that it is absurd. Because, simply, there was absolutely no way that anyone believed that wars were the best way to spread values, or do anything positive. Even on the typical more cynical assumption-- that the real purpose of the neocon wars were to secure access to oil– the actions taken didn't make sense. Because military power was the worst possible tool to accomplish any of the assumed goals, whether “spreading values” or securing oil. The greatest strength of America in terms of power was and is economic. Using economic power, and diplomacy, would have been a thousand times more likely to bring about positive outcomes, whether ideological, or merely self-serving. The leaders knew this. It isn't a mystery how these things work. They knew war would create destruction, and moreover, they “made mistakes” that exacerbated the problems of war…The “neoconservative ideology” was, in my opinion, a sham, and Soros' blithe, matter-of-fact declarations against “these Bush ideologists” rings as hollow as an empty tank.

And looking back on the idea of “neoconservatism” today, the artificiality of it is even more evident. The “movement” was not an organic political fact-- it was a marketing tool for cloaking pure power (exploitation through war). And yet, if we recall those years, the whole country was badly divided by this Republican versus Democrat battle over neoconservatism and Bush's arrogance (which was not accidental). But since the rise of President Trump, that entire image of politics got blown away– rendered irrelevant and all but forgotten. And that is because there was nothing to it.

But, having painted this absurd (though at that time accepted) picture of the nature of naughty American power, Soros goes on to confidently tell us how it can be “corrected”. The overwhelming impression of this little book is the almost crudely self-assured way in which Soros injects his imperious, globalist perspective implicitly in nearly every paragraph. This is what we saw in the title. And so, we get the idea that national sovereignty IS A PROBLEM, and Soros offers us solutions.

After a bit of rather flagrantly disingenuous rumination on the history of sovereignty, we are told:

“Anachronistic or not, sovereignty remains the basis of the current world order. It would be utopian to think otherwise. We live in a lopsided world: The economy is globalized, but political power remains rooted in the sovereignty of states.

This poses two distinct challenges: first, how to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states and, second, how to ensure that the intervention serves the common interest.”

And so his intent is stated baldly right at the start.

Soros discusses the growth of international finance since the second world war. He points out, rightly, that the global economy has continued to grow in power, and explains how this has a tendency to overwhelm and undermine national and local economies. This is offered matter-of-factly, without any questioning of whether it is desirable. It is simply the way things are, per Soros:

“Global financial markets work like a gigantic circulatory system, sucking up capital into the financial institutions and markets at the center, then pumping it out to the periphery… As long as the circulatory system is vigorous, it overwhelms all local markets. Indeed, most local capital eventually turns international.”

That sounds delightful George! The gigantic pump of international finance is a metaphorical monster that will have its way with lesser units. That is just how it is.

But we are reassured about the strength of national sovereignty, in relation to this gigantic financial pump, should we be worried about it:

“The balance of advantage has swung so far in favor of financial capital that it is often said that multinational corporations and international financial markets have somehow supplanted the sovereignty of the state. That is a misunderstanding. States retain their sovereignty and wield legal and enforcement authority that no individual or corporation can hope to possess.”

But of course, the most basic grasp of political realism tells us that state sovereignty is only as real as the power that backs it up-- regardless of the established, surface political structure. If, say, leaders are acting at the behest of international financial power, then state sovereignty is very much threatened de facto. Soros does not acknowledge this AT ALL. Indeed, everything in this book proceeds with such one-sided, anti-realistic assumptions, and hence it is quite correct to call it propaganda.

Meanwhile, even if we believe Soros about the current strength of state sovereignty, he hardly leaves any doubt about the fact that he would like to change things! But, of course, this comes from humanitarian impulses. For “[financial and economic] globalization has severely impaired the capacity of the state to provide public goods for its citizens…”, and this, we are told, makes it impossible for the national welfare states that existed in mid century to be maintained. Hence, the individual is dependent on the state, and the state is too severely impaired to help him anymore. This is just the way it is. So hopefully there are global billionaire activists that are willing to intervene for “the common interest” (Soros' actual phrase, oft repeated).

Meanwhile, Soros tells us, “states have a tendency to abuse their power”… that is true, but is it not the same for “billionaire philanthropists”? The fact is: POWER IN GENERAL tends to be abused. Yet again, Soros makes no mention of the danger that abusive state power would be replaced by equally (or more) abusive global power. This is typical of his propagandistic tack.

Soros explains how the system of the global financial pump has a tendency to favor the stronger states, and disadvantage the weaker ones. Thus, Soros' humanitarianism dictates that he interfere on behalf of the latter. But the problem is “as things stand now, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of interfering in the internal affairs of states.” There it is again, stated baldly. “The principle of sovereignty stands in the way” of Soros' humanitarianism… This, again, is the towering arrogance of Soros. And the whole book is clearly calculated to promote this basic idea. Soros is a humanitarian; American power, and state sovereignty in general are a source of backwardness-- whatever can be done about this problem?

Not once does Soros address the countless dangers of globalization, nor show the least appreciation for any frame of reference other than the economic (a standard attitude in the last several centuries-- only economic progress matters), supplemented by the laughable fig leaf of “philosophy” in his invocation and co-optation of philosopher Karl Popper's idea of “the open society”. Globalism is a natural tendency in many ways, but no trend continues forever. Its drawbacks are many: culture is homogenized, the smaller units of society get destroyed, the organic fabric of society gets removed in favor of commercialization and the machine-like regimentation of large institutions… And the dangers of globalism are extreme. For one example, as President Trump has pointed out recently, if the global supply chain has the United States getting all its steel from China, and then a war breaks out between the US and China, what then? This shows the absolute dishonesty behind Soros' claims that state sovereignty is strong so long as the surface politics says so. And these sorts of questions can push us in one of two directions: either we pull back on the relentless march towards globalization, or we submit to a global order that de facto destroys state sovereignty… And when state sovereignty is no longer a fact, then WHO wields the real power?

Consider, again, Soros' own words: “states have a tendency to abuse their power”.

Two factors make global power MORE prone to abuse than state power: 1. global power by definition, is of a greater magnitude than state power, and hence more prone to abuse, and 2. the competition between states acts as a powerful corrective to any one state's growing too abusive in its power. Because if the leader of one state is too corrupt, the state becomes weakened, and outside states (or non-state actors, for that matter) immediately begin to size up the possibilities for intervening, or even seizing control themselves… whereas the danger with a global structure (and this has long been known) is that if IT grows corrupt, then there is NO OUTSIDE POWER LEFT TO INTERVENE… This is the very real menace of global power, and why a multiplicity of sovereign states is an absolute necessity as a counter-balance.

The media narrative about Soros is preposterous. The very fact that he is sometimes called “an activist” is extraordinarily silly. An activist is someone with little power that seeks to stand up to great power. Individuals CAN and do wield power at the level of states; Soros is the prime example of this modern times. Hence can not be an activist in any reasonable sense of the word. He wields a different KIND of power than nation states do, but that doesn't change the basic dynamics of power politics. He is unquestionably a threat. By far the most reasonable interpretation of his activities is that he is seeking to usurp power to himself, or those with whom he works. It is almost overwhelmingly flagrant. If you feel inclined to trust him that he only wants all this power for humanitarian reasons, then you may accept his power grabs, but he still is not even being honest about the basic fact of what he does. “The American Bubble” is just another propaganda piece that weaves a vapid narrative to make global dissolution of state sovereignty seem inevitable. But, of course, it is not.

I would point out, in closing, how utterly unconvincing Soros is at portraying himself as a humanitarian. He usually says the right things, but you never get the least sense of sincere feeling from him. And certain little “tells” reveal the calculated nature of his self-portrayal. Here is one example that stuck out:

“It may be surmised from the closing remarks of the last chapter that I have become rather rabid in my political views. This is a novel experience for me. I used to be rather balanced between the two main parties, seeing some good and some bad in each, and leaning only slightly toward the Democrats. Even today, I remain rather even-handed by finding much to criticize in the leadership of the Democratic party… I attribute this change not to some sudden quirk in my character but to a qualitative shift in the role that the United States plays in the world.”

Who would possibly “attribute” a change in their own political views “to some sudden quirk” in their character? That is something you might say about someone else, but as self-reflection, it is unreal. Likewise with “I remain rather even-handed”. Being “even-handed” has nothing to do with belief, conviction, or caring. It is not how real people conceive their own political beliefs. It is what might be said of a sovereign ruler in relation to those to whom he dispenses favors…

At least we can surmise that Soros does not employ a ghost-writer…

nice thread. I'll add books as I come across them.

I've found a childrens book that discusses 9/11 … and makes no mention of wtc7.

https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A"Council+on+Foreign+Relations+books."

141 titles for Council on Foreign Relations books. Undoubtedly much can be gleaned about what agendas lie behind global policy-- though we must read between the lines to find it.