George Soros discussion...
-
derrick09
- Valued Member
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:47 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Southeastern Kentucky
George Soros discussion...
Hello everyone, I was Just curious, have any of you all researched this guy? The fact that he is a big part of why our economy has been failing and our cost of living has been going up along with the fact that he is a rich powerful extremely liberal anti Semitic atheist who dreams about having a global financial order or new world order (in his own words by the way), I know it's too early to say for sure but if the end times interpretation of futurism is true then, this guy may be one of the best candidates for the antichrist that I have ever seen. Or at the very least this guy is helping prepare the way for the antichrist. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks and God bless.
-
Cross.eyed
- Valued Member
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Kentucky U.S.A.
Re: George Soros discussion...
George Soros is certainly an antiChrist and a greedy one at that.
The only things I know of him boils down to evil, plain and simple.
The only things I know of him boils down to evil, plain and simple.
I am the wretch the song refers to.
-
Mzsmitty62
- Newbie Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:21 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
Re: George Soros discussion...
Just watch Glen Beck, he narrows it all down about George. George is connected to anything and everything evil.
-
ChrisB
- Established Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:31 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Oregon
Re: George Soros discussion...
Check this out: http://www.undueinfluence.com/george-soros.htmderrick09 wrote:Hello everyone, I was Just curious, have any of you all researched this guy? The fact that he is a big part of why our economy has been failing and our cost of living has been going up along with the fact that he is a rich powerful extremely liberal anti Semitic atheist who dreams about having a global financial order or new world order (in his own words by the way), I know it's too early to say for sure but if the end times interpretation of futurism is true then, this guy may be one of the best candidates for the antichrist that I have ever seen. Or at the very least this guy is helping prepare the way for the antichrist. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks and God bless.
^The main site that page comes from also includes info on George's cronies and groups: http://www.undueinfluence.com/index.html
A recent audio has also shown up.
God Bless.
"Materialists and madmen never have doubts." -G.K. Chesterton
-
B. W.
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
- Christian: Yes
- Location: Colorado
Re: George Soros discussion...
Glenn is just quoting old news about the guy's history. George does think he is a messaih.Mzsmitty62 wrote:Just watch Glen Beck, he narrows it all down about George. George is connected to anything and everything evil.
With the stuff about Soros now coiming out - Question: How does this fit into bible prophacy with the globel world order?
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
-
Ngakunui
- Established Member
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:08 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Down South
Re: George Soros discussion...
For a philanthropist, Mr.Soros has done a great deal to ruin everyone's economies, therefor lowering the value of his donations. This points towards an ulterior motive.
What he claims to be his motive is an agenda that he refers to as "Open Society", which is essentially a government run "openly" by voters and "contributors". The best way to imagine this is to take the philosophy applied to Public Broadcasting networks, without votes being paid for, supposedly. Now take this and apply it to a country in all aspects: economy, government, culture, and personal life. This essentially leads to a more collective people with less differences, and an environment based entirely on the decision making of others; the majority vote decides what your world is. It isn't Communism, Marxism or Totalitarianism, but it can be compared in many ways. He has, as you can see referenced in an above post for example, shown preference for Communist and Marxist ideologies.
The main problem with his agenda is that he wants this "Open Society" to be implemented over the World to some degree. His ideals are best summed as "What everyone else wants is good, and whatever you want is insignificant." So let's say you live in a secluded part of the world that's partially "integrated" into the "economy", everyone is old fashioned, reserved, and cultured- well, not any more because now society is "open", and your secluded Podunk town in the middle of the Appalachian Mountains must conform to the "world's order". You want to make your own liquor, hunt, and mind your own business? Well, to Hell with that! You have to "conform" and be like everyone else. All the hunting lodges are going to be replaced with loud buildings for "raves", quilt guilds will be disbanded by "public decisions", and all those privately owned stores will be replaced with "public" ones that serve factory-made and harvested food that tastes like cardboard and poorly built luxuries made in "publicly owned" factories. Forget about your local printing press, too; they're going to be torn down and replaced with cyber-cafe's where you get all of your information from easily edited "public" encyclopedias on the internet. You were certain the United States was formed by disgruntled British people, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin? Not any more, according to the internet! According to the "public's" Encyclopedias, it was founded by The Burger King, Robert E Lee, Gordon Brown, and Abraham Lincoln. How enlightened for a publicly educated, elected council of twelve-year-olds to tell us how wrong our knowledge of history was!
That's really the problem with the "Open Society" doctrine. It is far too centred around "everyone else wants it" and "everyone says it", and reaches over too large of an area. There's no respect for individual wants or needs, and instead treats the people of whatever places encompassed by such a society as a "whole". It doesn't even go so far as to recognise groups, let alone persons. Believe me, this might sound like a good idea if you're really desperate to get rid of political parties, but from what I've been able to tell about "Open Society", it even makes Communism sound good in comparison. Not that I like either. Regardless, not only is the true to form version of "Open Society" a danger, but so too is its realistic form; it can far too easily be corrupted into something even worse than what it's meant to be. A system based that heavily on democracy is destined to become corrupt. Even today in a relatively reasonable republic, where votes are taken over things that are usually not too invasive, people find the most clever ways to stuff the ballots and sway the votes in their favours, even when it's(typically) entirely automated. In a place where votes are all that do the decision making, it's hardly a stretch to see how a would-be tyrant can have the votes tallied as he wants them, and become a de-facto ruler.
In other words, Open Society is like much of what our economy-ruining philanthropist George Soros has done: counter productive- unless, of course, the product is awful and unmerited.
What he claims to be his motive is an agenda that he refers to as "Open Society", which is essentially a government run "openly" by voters and "contributors". The best way to imagine this is to take the philosophy applied to Public Broadcasting networks, without votes being paid for, supposedly. Now take this and apply it to a country in all aspects: economy, government, culture, and personal life. This essentially leads to a more collective people with less differences, and an environment based entirely on the decision making of others; the majority vote decides what your world is. It isn't Communism, Marxism or Totalitarianism, but it can be compared in many ways. He has, as you can see referenced in an above post for example, shown preference for Communist and Marxist ideologies.
The main problem with his agenda is that he wants this "Open Society" to be implemented over the World to some degree. His ideals are best summed as "What everyone else wants is good, and whatever you want is insignificant." So let's say you live in a secluded part of the world that's partially "integrated" into the "economy", everyone is old fashioned, reserved, and cultured- well, not any more because now society is "open", and your secluded Podunk town in the middle of the Appalachian Mountains must conform to the "world's order". You want to make your own liquor, hunt, and mind your own business? Well, to Hell with that! You have to "conform" and be like everyone else. All the hunting lodges are going to be replaced with loud buildings for "raves", quilt guilds will be disbanded by "public decisions", and all those privately owned stores will be replaced with "public" ones that serve factory-made and harvested food that tastes like cardboard and poorly built luxuries made in "publicly owned" factories. Forget about your local printing press, too; they're going to be torn down and replaced with cyber-cafe's where you get all of your information from easily edited "public" encyclopedias on the internet. You were certain the United States was formed by disgruntled British people, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin? Not any more, according to the internet! According to the "public's" Encyclopedias, it was founded by The Burger King, Robert E Lee, Gordon Brown, and Abraham Lincoln. How enlightened for a publicly educated, elected council of twelve-year-olds to tell us how wrong our knowledge of history was!
That's really the problem with the "Open Society" doctrine. It is far too centred around "everyone else wants it" and "everyone says it", and reaches over too large of an area. There's no respect for individual wants or needs, and instead treats the people of whatever places encompassed by such a society as a "whole". It doesn't even go so far as to recognise groups, let alone persons. Believe me, this might sound like a good idea if you're really desperate to get rid of political parties, but from what I've been able to tell about "Open Society", it even makes Communism sound good in comparison. Not that I like either. Regardless, not only is the true to form version of "Open Society" a danger, but so too is its realistic form; it can far too easily be corrupted into something even worse than what it's meant to be. A system based that heavily on democracy is destined to become corrupt. Even today in a relatively reasonable republic, where votes are taken over things that are usually not too invasive, people find the most clever ways to stuff the ballots and sway the votes in their favours, even when it's(typically) entirely automated. In a place where votes are all that do the decision making, it's hardly a stretch to see how a would-be tyrant can have the votes tallied as he wants them, and become a de-facto ruler.
In other words, Open Society is like much of what our economy-ruining philanthropist George Soros has done: counter productive- unless, of course, the product is awful and unmerited.