Underneath the Mr Soros’ subterfuge of replacing “absolute values” with “debate and choice” lies the contradiction that that “debate and choice” are just a different set of “absolute values”, which just so happen to be so much more conveniently malleable to the ambitions of self-annointed moral ‘innovators’ like Mr. Soros for the propagation of the society of his choice.
Spirited: Soros follows the wellworn highway-to-Hell taken by all who have usurped the throne of God. From Nimrod to the Pharoahs and Nero, and to Comte, Marx, and Nietzsche-—all of these men resorted to Orwellian double-speak, misapplication, word-magic, spell-binding, etc., in pursuit of their singular object: godhood. Soros is a liar who, believing as ‘true’ his own lies, has recast them as authoritative revelation.
I so agree with you, dear sister in Christ!
On the other hand, to speak this language would be to leave a whole heck of a lot of people clueless. I mean, those people who have been "lovingly conditioned" (usually at great taxpayer expense) to accept the premise of a godless universe.
To me, the great appeal of Soros' message is the "temptation to believe" that man is really, really "in charge" of what happens in the universe. (Sounds like the same spiel that Satan used to seduce Eve, and then Adam.) Which is the same thing as saying that Man is the Measure of All Things.
But since no part in isolation can exhaustively give an account of the whole of which it is a part, this line of reasoning will not do. If we want to have a countering social effect to the sputem that Soros routinely ejaculates as a facsimile of rational thought, we need better metaphors than appeals to "Pharoahs and Nero, and to Comte, Marx, and Nietzsche," even if we toss in George Orwell for good measure.
I'm not criticizing you here, just saying that we have to draw the proper conclusions. And those will be found "proper" if they can resonate with the American people, as they are, where they stand, right now at this juncture in history, in ways that help advance and secure our national survival and prosperity.
Do not depend on the idea that your average American these days has received a proper, liberal (as it used to be called) education. Ever since John Dewey, publicly-financed education has had little if anything to do with the cultivation of the individual human mind by exposing it to the history and culture of the human past, and training it in critical, logical thinking skills. It has not been about encouraging "independent thinking" at all. It has been — after the Prussian model that Dewey found so conducive to his purposes — singularly devoted to the making of "good citizens" — people with marketable skills who make for good, quiet, reliable taxpayers — while persuading them that certain problems of human existence ought properly be taken out of their hands and vested in the "wise, expert state" to handle on their behalf.
Such a view of the purpose of education in a civilized society, however, is wholly inimical to the American understanding of the human person and his rights and duties as a citizen in a society founded on the rule of law and his natural privileges as a God-created creature endowed with inalienable rights.
Just to remind folks, an "inalienable right" cannot be granted by a government. For what a government can grant, a government may rescind. Therefore, a "right" established in this way cannot in principle be "unalienable."
Which is why the universal unalienable human rights that the Declaration of Independence declares, of life, liberty, and property ("pursuit of happiness") must either be grants of God, or perfect fictions....
I guess we are all fast reaching the point when we better have greater clarity of thought, and a greater sense of purpose, if we wish for our American way of life to survive....
Just some thoughts, just thinking aloud here.... Thank you ever so much, dear spirited irish, for sharing your thoughts with me (with us)!