It’s difficult to explain in words why exactly I rate George Soros’ creep factor higher than those of his Globalist counterparts, except to say that studying his philanthropic activity gives me the sensation of being enveloped in a suffocating fog. I don’t imagine there are any, ‘save the bunnies’ charitable provisions.
With nearly palpable evil spilling off the pages of his foundations’ charitable listings, I decided it would behoove me to learn more about Soros. It didn’t take much digging to learn of Soros’ relationship with Karl Popper, author of the book “The Open Society and its Enemies,” which was first published in 1945. Popper was supposedly a well-revered and widely-known “scientific” philosopher.
Soros wrote a forward in the 1994 One-Volume Edition of Popper’s book in which he notes that Popper tutored him for a time when enrolled at the London School of Economics in the late 1940s.
Considering the name of Soros’ philanthropic empire, ‘Open Society Foundations,’ I think it’s reasonable to assume that Karl Popper had a great deal of influence on one of today’s most menacing Globalist billionaires. As a result, I deemed it necessary to educate myself on Poppers philosophical prowess.
Refreshing as it would be to study someone whose books have some sort of entertainment level, I’ve taken on the challenge of exposing a group of people who are painfully narcissistic, nauseatingly serious, and who possess a high level of intellectual snobbery. Their pomposity leads to a fondness for philosophical nonsense like, Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies,” within which he explains his ‘Paradox of Tolerance.’
While the ‘Paradox’ in its entirety can be found at the end of this article, the sentence that best reveals his wayward jibber-jabber is, “Claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
I have no doubt that many have enjoyed analyzing this ‘Paradox’ to death, but such mind-numbing work is of no interest to me, because Karl Popper’s ‘Paradox of Tolerance’ is meaningless in the real world. Clearly, today’s ideas of what is and is not rational are highly subjective. Therefore, how does one objectively determine what should and should not be tolerated.
For instance… Globalist ideologues believe that we must tolerate the mutilation of children.
From what I can tell, George Soros embraced this deeply problematic ‘Paradox,’ during his time at the London School of Economics and has been enamored by it ever since.
Karl Popper’s ‘Paradox of tolerance’:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”