It is evident that Soros did this by shrewdly and realistically analyzing the mediatarian agenda itself, then supporting only the causes and worldview that prevail in the post-60s media.
It is a formula for absolute power. It is a new formula, one that exploits and recognizes the real nature of the saturation media. In some ways, it is long overdue, since the age of saturation media may be said to have begun when television swung the balance in the 1960 Presidential election, and media leaders recognized that their own biases had determined the direction of that change.
The most dangerous tyrants are those who develop new methods of seizing power: Napoleon in the service of a revolutionary republic, Lenin through the grievances of the previously dismissed underclass, Hitler through the clever use of newly invented mass media.
Soros is perhaps the smartest, most ruthless, and least recognized of all. His real agenda is invisible to the media, for he understands perfectly what the media are about, and how they run, and what they will and will not choose to emphasize.
Soros has almost certainly read The Conquest of Cool Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism by Thomas Frank. Excuse my presumption, but everyone here should read it, too. It is the most important book of the last 10 years. It explains how, and more importantly, why, the big media have a vested, corporate, profit-driven interest in supporting totalitarian ideology, and how this interest has corrupted American poltical life and social evolution for over 40 years. I am convinced that this relationship is what Soros has recognized. It is implicit in his every move.
The unmitigated gall of this rank opportunist. Soros' insinuation into our political process is extremely suspect. What kind of covert deal does he have with the Johns?
As I've been preaching on this forum, the Balkanization of American politics ----dividing Americans into "hyphenates" -----is detrimental to democracy.
These "hyphenates" bring "tribal" culture to the political table that is a distraction to the concept of one nation democracy, and is redolent with the whiff of anti-Americanism.
In the divide and conquer process, politicians segregate hyphenates, creating voting blocs. The politicians promise hyphenates the moon and the stars and do it on our dime.
American taxpayers are not only burdened with supporting these hyphenated "tribes" but have to contend with watching the very foundations of our republic weakened in the process.
Internationalist Soros should get out of the business of American politics and leave it to "we, the preople," where it belongs.
Would it be fair to say that George Soros is a more dangerous person than, say Bin Laden or Zarqawi? Is he the most dangerous person standing against US interests in the world today?