On Soros's Payroll?

I spend a lot of time participating on Christian blogs. All of those blogs are religiously conservative Christian blogs and all but one of them are politically conservative blogs too. 

I participated on those blogs despite my now past health problems because it is less taxing to respond to an article than it is to write one from scratch.

One of the best religiously conservative blogs I've seen is Roger Olson's My Evangelical Arminian Theological Musings (click here for the blog). Though we do have some differences of opinion on a couple of important topics, such as I'm a Calvinist and he isn't, his articles are well thought out and I have learned much from them and appreciate how he manages his blog. In addition, Olson is very much an independent thinker both theologically and politically.  Olson's blog is a safe blog to comment on because it is tightly moderated. He does not allow personal attacks to appear in the comments. If only all religiously conservative Christian blogs would follow that example.

On one of the politically conservative blogs on which I comment on, I have received a few comments FALSELY claiming that I am being paid by George Soros. Those comments are derisive and so I am not sure how literal they are being in their accusations. But such comments are directed at me because I have expressed many political views that are not conservative on that blog. I have found that to share non-conservative political views on most religiously conservative Christian blogs invites personal attacks and accusations. Some of the attacks can be described in no other way than abusive. 

Soros seems to be a favorite whipping boy and scapegoat for most of my politically conservative Christian friends. A lot of that is due to Soros's political leanings and philanthropic efforts. Soros believes in democracy with an open society while almost all of my religiously conservative Christian friends are politically conservative. And we should stop here and note the contrast: democracy with an open society vs political conservatism. Btw, his pairing of democracy with an open society is similar to my pairing of democracy with equality except that my pairing sees equality as being inextricably linked to democracy. That is you can't have democracy without equality.

I found that many of the claims about Soros made by my fellow religiously conservative Christian friends are nothing more than false accusations that often stem from conspiracy theories. And so when I saw the documentary Soros on the list of Tube movies, I decided to watch it (click here to see the movie).

The way that Soros has made his fortune did not impress me. Why? It is because he made his fortune as a hedge fund manager. Such an occupation and the values that come with it often, if not always, practice and promote what Martin Luther King Jr. associated with a choosing a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society. A thing-oriented society is where the people value gadgets, profit motives and property rights more than they value people.

However, the combination of Soros's life growing up in Hungary, which included the time of Nazi occupation, and his current approach to philanthropy has given me a great respect for the man. So that the next time I am accused of being on Soros's payroll, I'll take it as a very high compliment, but one that I don't deserve. For his philanthropy consists of more than just charity to relieve an immediate survival needs, it also includes projects that promote education and democracy with an open society. And those projects are designed to produce lasting results.

But here, we need to return to King's statement that was quoted in my last post. In his speech against the Vietnam War, along with his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur, King said that we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society so that people are more important than our gadgets, profit motives, and property rights. For, according to King, it is only then that we can eliminate racism, economic exploitation, and militarism (click here and proceed to around the 21:17 point in that interview). And though Soros has so generously donated money to financially help groups and communities out of poverty and to promote an open society, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society for Soros's donations to have lasting effects. 

Though Soros's donations has done much to restore freedom and equality to parts of the world that had been oppressed with tyranny, and though His donations have also helped to improve those nations that claim to lean toward democracy with equality, there is a new threat to Soros's projects, among other things, that has emerged in Europe and the U.S. For just as Putin has undone almost all of Gorbachev's work to establish openness in Russia, so today's Nationalist movements in Europe and America are threatening not just to undo much of what Soros's donations have helped to enable, they are threatening to reverse any nation's leaning toward building a democracy with equality.

Here we should note that those nationalist movements are nothing more than authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Here we should note that the term 'authoritarian ethnocratic' is repetitive. That is because all ethnocracies are authoritarian to varying degrees. For with an ethnocracy, a particular ethnic group, whether the ethnicity of that group is based on race, national origin or language, descent, or religion, has a greater claim to and control over the nation and its society of a multiethnic nation than the people from the other ethnic groups--btw, the list of the ethnic categories comes from from Jeff Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. And that greater claim to and level of control over a multiethnic nation denies, to varying degrees, the equal rights and status of people from the other ethnic groups.

And so it should come as no surprise that authoritarianism in the guise of ethnocratic conservative movements in Europe and here in the U.S. are threatening to undo whatever portion of openness we have as well. That a significant contributing factor to those movements has to do with the distribution of wealth especially in the face of growing refugee problems. 

But those authoritarian ethnocratic movements have cultural concerns to when it comes to refugees. People in those movements are scared that the culture of their society will change with an influx of foreign refugees. Here we should note that there is only one way for a nation to protect its culture from changing: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. Maybe it is because I am a child of the 1960s when the young people radically changed the culture, but it seems that each new generation here in America has made significant changes to our own culture. And regarding accepting immigrants who are refugees trying to escape poverty and violence, we must ask ourselves if we care more about whatever comfort we have with our culture than we care about human life?

In addition, we Westerners need to admit that much, if not most, of our refugee immigrants problems are due to Western economic and/or militaristic foreign policies. Those authoritarian ethnocratic movements either support or do not oppose those policies that made messes in other parts of the world. They only care about not having to deal with the aftermath of those messes when that aftermath emigrates to where those movements live. And there is often racism in the refusal to deal with those messes. Here note the different response that Ukrainian refugees receive from their European neighbors in contrast to how Middle East refugees are received in Europe and how refugees from south of the border are received here in America.

Soros is understandably troubled and concerned over the rise of these authoritarian ethonocratic movements for at least a couple of reasons. First, he escaped the clutches of such a movement in Hungary during WW II because of his father's daring and wisdom. But he still saw its horrific effects on friends, family, and others. Also, as mentioned before, those authoritarian ethnocratic movements are threatening to undo some of the projects that promote domocracy with open societies which he started and so heavily invested in. 

It is so deeply tragic to acknowledge that most of those in America's religiously conservative Christian community embrace authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Their embracement of those movements  promote varying levels of authoritarianism. And the lower the degree of authoritarianism promoted by a given movement, the more that ethnocratic movement can disguise its character and goals in plain site.

For those of us who want Soros's projects to experience more and  lasting success, we must look to change society. As King said, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to being a person-oriented society. To do that we must learn to value people over our gadgets and machines, our profit motives, and our proper rights. That does not mean that we can't appreciate our gadgets and machines or that we believe that profit motives and property rights are not important. It means that we must continue to learn to value people, especially those who are vulnerable, more than we value those things. 

Even though America is leaning a little more toward democracy with equality thanks to a not infallible wokeism, there is still more work to be done. There is still a revolution in values that our nation needs to undergo and our structures still need changing. And that revolution and needed change will not occur without everyone's participation.

Comments WHich Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 17, 2020

June 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that plays a Project Veritas video that Refusefa is Antifa and that George Soros funds them. This appeared on Heidelblog.

Refusefa is not antifa. One only needs to read Refusefa's website, listen to their presentations,  or look at the age demographics of its members to tell. I have street knowledge of Antifa. Clark doesn't have that.

I watched the video referred to in the video above. There is no proof that they were training anyone from Refusefa. Rather the only reference to Refusefa made is the following: Refusefa(Antifa) label made by Project Veritas which tries to conflate the two. In fact, video presentations like the one above should never be used as proof for a claim against a group because there is no way of knowing how the video was edited to make a point. Such videos, like the one above, at best should only be used to get people to start investigating claims

From here, we should note the factual reporting rating that Project Veritas has. According to Mediabiasfactcheck, Project Veritas has a mixed factual reporting rating because of some of its previous reports have been shown to be false (see  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/  ). Before one either accepts or rejects that report, one should look at the specifics as to why Project Veritas received such a rating, one should look at the specifics of the report.

An example of Project Veritas's work, one could look at their attempt to get the Washington Post to publish a false accusation against Roy Moore (see https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/washington-post/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-project-veritas/  ). But such is only one example. Other examples are needed to get a better picture of Project Veritas.

What does the above mean? For the Christian it means that if one is to avoid violating the  commandment prohibiting bearing false witness, then one should consult other news sources and stories that confirm the accusations made by groups like Project Veritas. Otherwise, one has negligently, at best, or opportunistically, at worst, made oneself vulnerable to bearing false witness against a person or group.

Unfortunately , Clark makes no such effort to verify a claim made by a questionable source. Going back to the videos, what proof was given that Refusefa and Antifa are the same or even linked together. Antifa is a street fighting group. I have street experience with them because I met them before they became (in)famous. They see themselves as today's version of the communists who battled the Brown Shirts in Germany prior to Hitler coming to power. BTW, we should note that regarding the recent protests and riots, the FBI found no evidence that Antifa was involved in the recent rioting and destruction of property following the George Floyd murder. However, it was discovered that some of the destruction of property was committed by people who were trying to sabotage peaceful protests.

Refusefa also opposes fascism, but they do so peacefully through protests.  In the principles page of their website, it explicitly states that Refusefa opposes fascism with NON-VIOLENT protests. Refusefa consists of a diverse group of people who are opposing what they see being done by the Trump/Pence Administration (see  https://refusefascism.org/category/on-critical-questions/   ). 

In relation to the Commandment prohibiting bearing false witness against one's neighbor, we should also note that George Soros is a favorite whipping boy of conservative conspiracy theorists According to some, he pays protesters but that has been shown to be false. In fact, in my 15 years of activism, I've never seen a protester who was paid just to protest in some event.

According to some, Soros and Hillary fund Black Lives Matter (BLM). But that was shown to be false for Soros and problematic for Hillary since BLM has publicly expressed serious disagreements with her.

Soros has founded Open Societies Foundation (see  https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/   ) which gives grants to different groups as described in their website. A list of their awarded grants from 2016 to 2018  can be found on the following website (see  https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past ) and current grants can be found on the following website (see  https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants?sort_by=name   ).

We should note that some who want to incite fear create conspiracy stories while those who are truly afraid find it more difficult to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. They are not just the true victims and intentional targets of conspiracy theorists, they also tend to be vulnerable to whims of active authoritarian teachers and leaders. And that is something we should wonder about here since Clark has passed along unexamined accusations from a suspect news source about a activist group whose politics he obviously opposes. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that consisted of a video of a Eastern European church planter as he talks about the effects of Communism in his nation. This appeared on Heidelblog.

Conservatism's biggest weakness is that it relies on oversimplifying problems and issues. The above is such an example.

One way Conservatism oversimplifies the subject of Communism is that it relies almost exclusively, if not exclusivity,  on the past to define the present. In fact it relies on a partial view of the past. Thus Communism is reduced to what was tried in the past regardless of whether what was tried in the past was truly Marxist.

The Soviet Union and the nations behind the Iron Curtain experienced Bolshevik rule. We should note that the reason for the Soviet takeover of the eastern European nations was because of past invasions from the West. What is left unmentioned is that many socialists died because of either Bolshevik purges or opposing Bolshevik rule. And the Western Christian response to that is to equate what the Bolsheviks did with Communism regardless of vast differences between Bolshevism and what other socialists believed in. In fact, we could also point out the vast differences between Bolshevism and what Marx wrote.

What is also ignored are the sins of the West, especially the US. For most part Communist revolutions sought to overthrow tyrants who were supported by the West. The Tsars, French colonialism in Vietnam followed by dictators in South Vietnam, Batista in Cuba, and Somoza in Nicaragua provide some examples. In addition, many times the US replaced left-leaning democracies with harsh dictators. Examples include Iran (1953) with help from the UK, Guatemala (1954), Greece (1967), and Chile (1973).

See, in an overly simplistic world, citing Leftist opposition to tyranny whether it proceeded a revolution or was the result of Western intervention complicates the subject because now we have what were the good guys doing bad and the bad guys doing good. This complicates things.

In addition, the Sandinista rule over Nicaragua during the 1980s which started with the overthrow of the dictator Somoza introduced Nicaragua to democracy. It didn't work out because the US supported terrorist attacks on Nicaragua until the nation was  so damaged and the Sandinistas were voted out.

And because Conservatism relies so much on the past to define the present, it has become blind to the changes in anti-Capitalism over the years. Those changes are described  in Ezequiel Adamovsky's book, Anti-Capitalism.

Now the presenter was certainly correct in his comments on utopianism. And Marx was a utopian. But that doesn't make everything he said wrong. In addition, we might note that there are two kinds of utopianism: absolute and relative.

Marx believed in an absolute utopianism. But there are those who support relative utopias in the West. A relative utopia is one that is viewed as being so good that it cannot be improved on. And that is the view that many in the US have of  Capitalism even though many of those people are unaware of the different kinds of Capitalism. Thus, there is a resistance to any changes to our capitalist economy because of the belief that it is the best and thus cannot be improved on.

And while the presenter talked about envy in both Communism and post-Communism, that envy is in the West too as it is especially evident in the decades-long growth in wealth disparity since the much of the world has embraced neoliberal capitalism.

Was there corruption in Communism? Of course, But is there any less corruption in the US, for example, when its economy relies on the maximization of profits philosophy? The causes for the economic  collapse of 2008 were largely due to corruption. And the almost recent study showing how the US is now more of an oligarchy than a democracy (see   )https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). Do we honestly think that such a transition occurred without envy, greed, and corruption?

There are many other problems with the video presentation that could be mentioned, but that would only take up too much time. In short, the video presentation is simply an example of opportunism, this time by conservatives, to take a shallow look at Communism/Socialism in order to discredit it. And while the presenter wants to speak to those in the US who are considering Marxism, he fails to listen to why they would do so. The why might be that Capitalism has failed too many people in the West.

Finally, we need to address the issue of religion here. Church history is replete with examples of the dominant branch of the Church for a given nation siding with wealth and power at the expense of others. When that occurred prior to a revolution, revolutionaries naturally believed that the Church contributed to the suffering of others and was the enemy of the people.  Marxists have responded in different ways to that. For example, Lenin observed how many Russians Christians from the Church there ignored and failed to help workers who were suffering because of the economic system. His response to the Church was to label it as an enemy of change.

Rosa Luxemburg, however, pleaded with Christians to join the cause and side with the workers who were suffering greatly in Russia. In Latin America, Liberation Theologians combined liberal Christianity with some of Marxism. So Marxism has been able to mix with religion. BTW, some of those Latin American Liberation Theologians were assassinated by Latin American fighters who were trained in the US.

It is sad that on a Christian blog, honesty on this subject is in very short supply. Why? It is because of opportunism, a similar kind of opportunism demonstrated by people like Lenin and Mao only there was no dictatorship that followed. Rather, there was just a hiding of the truth and an attempt to control thinking.