Posted Jul 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

COMMENT: It’s akin to a multi-billion marketing campaign

I have family in

UK, Sydney, and Galway, Ireland

All are getting “diversity” pushed. It’s like a weapon now to prevent unity, common heritage against govt

I made these for friends. The end game of diversity?

There will be OLYMPIC teams in 30 years!

RL

REPLY:  The real purpose of this Diversity Equality Inclusion global marketing plan has NOTHING to do with caring about people. I think the racist label has greatly died down, for in our own company, we have every religion and race working together. Even this LGBQT movement disrespects everyone else and demands we change our pronouns, and it is offensive to them if we call our mother – “mother.” This excessive abuse creates discrimination when one group demands everyone else must change their actions that have no direct physical impact on them.

What made the United States the great melting pot and the largest economy in the world was DISCRIMINATION. It was fair, for whoever was the last off the boat was discriminated against until they learned English to get a job. There were violent incidences, like when the Irish came in during the Hard Times of the 1840s, that resurrected the old hatred of Catholics in Philadelphia by the English Protestants. However, the second generation all intermarried once they spoke the same language. Ask an American what they are; the typical response will be half Irish, half German – or whatever the combination might be.

This is George Soros’ Open Society agenda that neither respects human culture nor anything that makes us individuals. Like Garland, Blinkin, and Nuland, Soros immediately attacks any critic, calling them antisemitic rather than addressing the criticism. As the Atlantic wrote: “George Soros’s name has been used as an anti-Semitic, nationalist dog whistle.”

Soro’s mentor is Karl Popper (1902-1994), who wrote several books, including “The Poverty of Historicism,” which Popper wrote in New Zealand during World War II. Popper became fixated with this notion of destiny pushed by Hitler and others throughout history. In his “The Open Society and its Enemies,” he writes: “Historicism, which I have so far characterized only in a rather abstract way, can be well illustrated by one of the simplest and oldest of its forms, the doctrine of the chosen people.” Poper describes this “historicism” as follows:

It is widely believed that a truly scientific or philosophical
attitude towards politics, and a deeper understanding of social life
in general, must be based upon a contemplation and interpretation
of human history. While the ordinary man takes the setting of his
life and the importance of his personal experiences and petty
struggles for granted, it is said that the social scientist or
philosopher has to survey things from a higher plane. He sees the
individual as a pawn, as a somewhat insignificant instrument in the
general development of mankind. And he finds that the really
important actors on the Stage of History are either the Great
Nations and their Great Leaders, or perhaps the Great Classes, or
the Great Ideas. However this may be, he will try to understand the
meaning of the play which is performed on the Historical Stage; he
will try to understand the laws of historical development. If he
succeeds in this, he will, of course, be able to predict future
developments. He might then put politics upon a solid basis, and
give us practical advice by telling us which political actions are
likely to succeed or likely to fail.

Popper became caught up in these claims of destiny, which blinded him to the actual driving forces behind society throughout the centuries and why kingdoms, empires, nations, and city-states always rise from nothing, reach a climax, and then disintegrate to dust, only to be buried in a common grave dug by history. In Edward Gibbon’s (1737-1794) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), his final chapter tells us about two attendants to Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447) who are sitting on top of the Capitoline Hill in Rome overlooking the Roman Forum. Poggius then comments upon the vicissitudes of fortune, which spares nothing and nobody while it buries empires, nations, and city-states in a common grave.

“Her primeval state, such as she -might–appear in a remote age, when Evander entertained the stranger of Troy, has been delineated by the fancy of Virgil. This Tarpeian rock was then a savage and solitary thicket; in the time of the poet, it was crowned with the golden roofs of a temple, the temple is overthrown, the gold has been pillaged, the wheel of Fortune has accomplished her revolution, and the sacred ground is again disfigured with thorns and brambles. The hill of the Capitol, on which we sit, was formerly the head of the Roman Empire, the citadel of the earth, the terror of kings; illustrated by the footsteps of so many triumphs, enriched with the spoils and tributes of so many nations. This spectacle of the world, how is it fallen! how changed! how defaced! The path of victory is obliterated by vines, and the benches of the senators are concealed by a dunghill. Cast your eyes on the Palatine hill, and seek among the shapeless and enormous fragments the marble theatre, the obelisks, the colossal statues, the porticos of Nero’s palace: survey the other hills of the city, the vacant space is interrupted only by ruins and gardens. The forum of the Roman people where they assembled to enact their laws and elect their magistrates, is now enclosed for the cultivation of pot-herbs, or thrown open for the reception of swine and buffaloes. The public and private edifices that were founded for eternity lie prostrate, naked, and broken, like the limbs of a mighty giant, and the ruin is the more visible from the stupendous relics that have survived the injuries of time and fortune.”

Popper rejected cycles because he was focused on these claims of destiny. That may have been the rhetoric of Hitler, but you do not focus your entire theory on trying to disprove such a claim. In the process, Popper never sought actually to identify why; no matter what form of government emerges, they are all buried in a common grave. Chancellor Merkel of Germany pushed economic theories based on the German false assumption that the hyperinflation took place BECAUSE of the printing of money when, in fact, it was the printing of money that was the response to the collapse in confidence of the Weimar Republic.

The Weimar Republic was born of the 1918 German Communist Revolution, during which the German communists even invited Russia to take Germany as part of their Communist Revolution in 1917. These Germans wanted to be part of this Marxist dream. Anyone in the right mind moves whatever wealth they have to other currencies. Then, in December 1922, the Weimar Government confiscated 10% of whatever assets you had in the bank to pay the reparation payments for losing the war.

This German distortion of historical events has poisoned the German economy ever since. It was the very reason why Hitler rose to power for the oppressive of the reparation payments that even Hohn Maynard Keynes warned was detrimental. However, the French had made reparation payments to Germany back in the 19th century, so they wanted retribution in the 20th century.

Even The Lyviathan by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was deeply influenced by the English Civil War and the beheading of the King. In his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) was also deeply influenced by the English Civil War between Protestants and Catholics. Consequently, he includes chapters on the rise of Islam and Christianity and attributes much of the cause behind the fall to religion and discord only because he saw that in Britain.

I find it very damaging when someone seeks to critique history based on current trends applied to different times. I have written before how William Penn named his city of Philadelphia based on the translation of the word “Philadelphos,” meaning “brotherly love.” That was not in a Christian sense; it referred to incest, where one married their sister, typically to keep the family wealth contained in the family. This was common in Egypt as well as Syria. This is my point. When looking at history, we MUST review it within the context of that period and NEVER apply our current experiences to their lack of understanding of their thinking and motives.

This was Popper’s great mistake in focusing on this claim of destiny, which was really a great sales slogan rather than a true economic trend. Popper may have wanted to improve the methods of the social sciences to promote peace, freedom, and prosperity, emulating the function of the natural sciences and technology to increase the earth’s productive capacity. However, his book’s central theme is his critique of the myth of historical destiny and historical determinism, that is, the idea that history is beyond human control.

There have been those who have recognized that the individual plays a key role, and this idea of government possessing the power to manipulate society, championed by Marx and Keynes, remains the very core of understanding the true nature of the economy. Carl Menger (1840-1921) is the founding father of the Austrian School of Economics, with his landmark “Principles of Economics,” published in 1871. There, Menger laid the intellectual framework for the subsequent Austrian scholars who followed him.

One of the book’s main themes is that the value of a good is not determined by factors that can be objectively determined (e.g., labor or material costs) but by subjective valuations of the object in question by individuals. As I explained to China when I was invited to help them transition to Capitalism, they were monitoring 249 varieties of tea. The question was, why is this one tea selling for about $5 in one place but $1 in another? I asked where its origin was, and that is where it happened to be $1. I elaborated that there were transportation costs first and secondly that someone would pay more for one tea than another because of personal preference.

In this sense, Carl Menger, Leon Walras, and William Stanley Jevons saw that economics has a human element that goes beyond supply and demand.  ‘Marginalist Revolution’ with Menger and Jevons was added to with elements by Walras, who proposed that the commodities’ relative marginal utilities determined relative prices of commodities and thus explained the discrepancy in the value of goods and services by reference to their secondary, or marginal, utility.

It was John Law (1671-1729), who was the father of the Supply and Demand theory he observed as a trader on the floor of the Amsterdam Bourse. However, Popper grossly overlooked the individual and that we are raised in a particular culture that forms our fundamental beliefs. You cannot have open borders and assume that everyone will assimilate into some homogenous society. Such a transition period of forced assimilation is highly violent and destructive.

Emperor Valens (364-378AD) allowed the Goths to cross the border, assuming that he could exploit them to build his army. They were trained in Roman tactics and then turned on the Emperor from inside the Roman Empire. Valens met his death on August 9th, 378 AD, in one of the greatest military catastrophes ever suffered by the Roman Legions – the Battle of Aadrianopolis. In this fateful battle to the death with the Goths, the legions of Rome were totally annihilated. The devastation and carnage was so vast that the body of the Emperor Valens was never recovered. This battle was one of the worst defeats Rome had ever suffered. Before, No one had ever destroyed the mighty legions of the Roman army while under the command of an Emperor himself. 

So much for Soros & Popper’s Theory of an Open Society

It is not antisemitic to criticize this theory.