In my previous articles The Great Reset Fraud and Putin’s Anti-Fascist Open System and You, I made the point that the trans-Atlantic System’s meltdown has precipitated a flood of “false solutions” promoted by those same arsonists who have done much to set it ablaze under a post-industrial bubble economy over many decades.
These false solutions have taken the form of the Green New Deal which proposes to use the twofold economic crisis/COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate the transition into a de-carbonized world order driven around by green energy grids, cap and trade/carbon tax schemes and general population reduction. The insipid outlook behind this paradigm is rooted in a devout misanthropy aimed at solving humanity’s problems by establishing technocratically management post-nation state regime.
The other paradigm advanced by Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping is in simple terms, a Multi-polar alliance under the guiding spirit of the Belt and Road/Polar Silk Road. Based upon their words and actions, both leaders have committed to open system models premised around the view that resources and growth are only as limited as the cognitive powers of the members of their nations. Vast megaprojects driven by high-speed rail, water programs, and space development highlight in practice just how their anti-Malthusian view has expressed itself in real time as 135 nations have already joined the framework at various levels and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.
The Institute for New Economic Thinking
Today, I would like to address an often overlooked but highly important part of those false solutions in a bit more detail. This will unfortunately involve looking into the disturbing mind of George Soros and an Oxford-based organization which this billionaire, regime-change-funding, world-government-loving, anti-nation state creep co-founded in 2008 entitled the Institute For New Economic Thinking (INET).
Founded in 2008, the Institute for New Economic Thinking was designed to absorb young creative minds who might otherwise make actual discoveries in economic science into a controlled environment where they would be granted an apparent (but not actual) freedom and funding. In this environment, they would be free to innovate new alternative theories of economics as long as they adopted certain specific assumptions and axioms conducive to oligarchical societies committed to zero growth/closed system thinking.
The idea behind INET was simple: The crash of 2008-2009 all but guaranteed that new ideas would be searched for to put out the impending fire as sheep would awaken in droves under the chaos of the ruined order, and a wide net had to be created to capture all the fish leaping out of the pond in search of new ideas.
Other co-founders included Jim Balsillie, and William Janeway while the former INEP chairman is none other than Lord Adair Turner.
Balsillie is a Canadian billionaire who ran the Canadian Roundtable Group renamed the Canadian International Council (CIC) after it merged with his Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in 2007. Working in tandem with the American Chatham House (aka: the CFR), Balsillie said in 2007:
“I have spearheaded the creation of the Canada-wide Canadian International Council (CIC). The Americans have their powerful Council on Foreign Relations, which offers non-partisan analysis of international issues and integrates business leaders with the best researchers and public policy leaders.” (1)
Janeway is a Cambridge professor and managing director at Warburg Princus capital management (yes, the same Warburg banking family that was caught funding Hitler) while Lord Turner is the former head regulator of the City of London from 2008-2013 who first introduced legislation for a Green New Deal into the UK parliament in 2009 and currently acts as chairman of the Global Energy Transitions Commission. Other leaders of the INEP governing board include Drummond Pike (the founder of Soros’ Tides Foundation), Rohinton Medhora (President of Balsillie’s CIGI), and Rob Johnson (former Managing Director at Soros Fund Management).
The Soros/Popper Sophistry Behind INET
In a 2010 interview with Chrystia Freeland, Soros described the new Institute’s purpose in the following terms.
“It is an attempt to get economists to rethink the very foundations of economics because it turns out that macro-economic theory has broken down. The financial crisis has shown that it is quite inadequate at making any kind of predictions about the future, and it has to be rethought from its fundamentals.”
In the interview Soros explains that economics is in a crisis due to the false belief that the field could be treated as a hard science like physics or biology with immutable Newtonian laws. But since the field of economics is shaped by human thought which itself is ruled by irrational feelings and passions, it can never be “a true science”. What makes it even more problematic says Soros, is that even apparently “scientific” concepts emanating from reason are intrinsically false and thus any action caused by those intrinsically false thoughts is naturally destructive and puts us into a disequilibrium.
Unlike the molecules in a gas chamber which obey specific laws, human beings act upon the chamber of the economy in such a way that may at times change both the contour of the chamber and also reflexively change the thoughts of those participants themselves. Soros likes to use the example of a drug addict.
In an October 2010 lecture on his General Theory of Reflexivity, Soros describes the problem of judging a person to be a criminal drug dealer then that thought/judgement manifested in laws and actions will then cause the dealer to act like a criminal. The thought/judgement thus shapes outcome. Soros argues that if you only de-criminalized drugs then you would eliminate any judgement and thus eliminate the criminal behaviour and thus no crime. Criminals would act respectably, drug lords would become normal business men and addicts would just be like any “normal” person living their life as they see fit.
Soros, who likes to think of himself as a profound philosopher, has advanced his General Theory of Reflexivity to which he explains in his lectures, is premised around two assumptions:
The participant’s view of the world is always partial and distorted (which he calls the “principle of fallibility” and
“These distorted views can influence the situation to which they relate because false views lead to inappropriate actions.” (Soros’ “Principle of Reflexivity”).
Since every idea shapes the system in an ever more inappropriate way, these “mental constructs take on an existence of their own further complicating the situation.” This growth of false thought plus false action thus leads to extreme disequilibrium and thus the inevitable collapse of systems.
Soros’ co-controller of INEP Rob Johnson stated that we must “re-attach our models to the context of radical uncertainty”.
One must not work hard to imagine why a sociopath like Soros was attracted to this set of concepts. In his 2010 lecture, Soros said “I started developing my philosophy as a student at the London School of Economics in the late 1950s… under the mentorship of Karl Popper” who argued [in his book Open Society and its Enemies -ed] that “empirical truth cannot be known with absolute certainty… Even scientific laws can’t be verified”. Relieved of the burden of truth, one’s conscience is free of any pangs which would result by having engaged in evil.
As outlined in an infamous 60 Minutes interview, Soros gushed that he not only felt no remorse for working with Nazis to confiscate the property of murdered Jews as a teenager living in 1944 Hungary, but described it as “the best time of his life”. When the interviewer pushed Soros to elaborate, he smiled and stated “its just like in the markets. If I wasn’t there… someone else would be taking it away anyhow.”
Keep in mind that these were not the musings of an old man thinking of his boyhood fight for survival in Nazi-controlled Hungary, but were the matured thoughts of an international speculator who had made billions destroying nations by betting against their currencies. Soros’ twisted mind would conclude that “It’s just making money. If people starve or governments fall into chaos, then who cares? It is legal and I am thus certainly no criminal.”
(Here the thinking person would soon recognize that Soros’ own theory breaks down since even though his acts have not been labelled criminal by the justice system, he has continued to act as a criminal.)
Merging Radical Uncertainty with Stability
While promoting the belief in “radical uncertainty”, Soros has stated in 2012 that the goal for INET is that “the assumption of rational expectations and rational behaviour will be effectively abandoned”.
Soros onto describe how “the idea that stability has to be an objective of public policy, which is not at the moment generally accepted will become more recognized”.
Here a new paradox arises…
How can a system premised on radical uncertainty be guided by stability? From where would this stability arise? Who will impose it? What standards could be used? Aren’t all standards intrinsically untruthful in Soros’ worldview?
The answer to these questions is simpler than you might imagine:
1) The masses will be expected to impose it onto themselves and 2) The upper level managerial elite hiding behind an invisible will of “complexity” will control the “stability” of the system from above as gods lording over the serfs in what Aldous Huxley once called the Concentration camp without tears.
In Soros and the INET vision, this will take the form of the Green New Deal and is in no way disconnected from philanthropic funding which Soros has become renowned for in recent decades. A brilliant 1998 article by Jim Jatras identified this homogenization of culture funded by the likes of Soros as “Rainbow Fascism”.
Working in tandem with the United Nations, the INET sponsored a 2019 summer school for young talented economists entitled “Is a Global Green New Deal the Solution?” (with the program wired to bring the participants to the conclusion that “yes… obviously.”
In January 2020, Soros committed $1 billion to start a “Global University… to fight authoritarian governments and climate change, calling them twin challenges that threaten the survival of our civilization” with a focus on Trump, Xi Jinping, and President Putin.
Perhaps if Soros had studied more Max Planck as a young man instead of wasting his time with the immoralist Karl Popper, he would have put a different set of ideas into motion that did more good to the world and his own soul than the misanthropic concepts which he chose to guide his life.
Max Planck vs Karl Popper
Wrestling with the same problems as Popper and Soros, the great scientist, musician and philosopher Max Planck (1858-1947) took a very different approach to resolving the Soros/Popper paradoxes when tackling the age old paradox of free will’s existence in a universe of law. How could both states of existence be true?
Planck was gripped by this question as a young teenager, and chose to tackle it most creatively: Instead of taking the advice of his cynical teacher who believed that nothing more could be discovered in physics and that he should drop his scientific ambitions for a more lucrative career, Planck devoted his life to the cause of wisdom and sought to discover creative principles of the universe. His passion manifested in the discovery of the quantum of action (Planck’s Constant) creating a new field of science of microphysics and the harnessing of atomic power for human use. Planck demonstrated that the mind’s ability to understand and act upon the laws of creation caused the universe itself to respond by increasing humanity’s boundary conditions (allowing our species to sustain more people at higher qualities of life and cognitive power through scientific and technological progress).
Speaking against the abandonment of causality which was gaining popularity by the 1930s with the rise of the statistical/probabilistic Copenhagen School of Neils Bohr and Max Heisenberg (upon which Soros and Popper base their theories), Planck argued in his 1935 Philosophy of Physics that:
“The reason why the measurements of atomic physics are inexact need not be looked for necessarily in any failure of causality. It may equally well consist in the formulation of faulty concepts and hence inappropriate questions.”
In the same essay, Planck argued that the corruption of science (which has become much deeper 80 years later) was tied to two fundamental errors:
1) The imposition of mathematics into the dominant position above physics which induced scientists to try to “fit” physical reality into the limited (and often wrong) cage of their mathematical language and…
2) The tendency to break the subjective mind of the scientist out of the equation of the objective universe which that person’s mind was investigating. On this point, Planck said:
“In dealing with the structure of any science, a reciprocal inter-connection between epistemological judgements and judgements of value was found to arise, and that no science can be wholly disentangled from the personality of the scientists.”
Towards the end of his life, Max Planck strove passionately to re-infuse scientific practice with the sense of honesty and love which animated the greatest discoveries of human history including his own discoveries of the quantum and Planck’s constant.
In both his incredible works “Philosophy of Physics” (1935) and “Where is Science Going?” (1932), Planck makes the point that the wave-particle duality paradox can only be resolved by infusing a sense of the mind of the inquirer into the equation and removing the conceptual wall dividing observed from observer.
To clarify the wave-particle paradox and Planck’s resolution:
Unlike a planet or other projectile, a light photon’s velocity and position cannot be simultaneously measured (for the moment one attempts to “see” a photon, those photons “hitting” the observed “object” to be returned back to the eye of the observer change that object’s position). Planck states that the resolution to this must be found not in lazily assuming that light must simply have two opposing identities of wave and particle, nor that the truth of its essence cannot be known, but rather that the very definitions of wave, particle, as well as mind itself must be refined by treating the matter of free will scientifically… for this is the only known case other than an observed photon, whereby the act of observing, changes that which is observed. Planck states:
“We may perhaps deal with free will. Looked at subjectively, the will, in so far as it looks to the future, is not causally determined, because any cognition of the subject’s will itself acts causally upon the will, so that any definitive cognition of a fixed causal nexus is out of the question. In other words, we might say that looked at from outside (objectively), the will is causally determined, and that looked at from inside (subjectively) it is free.”
Planck described the role of creative thought in this process most beautifully when he said:
“A good working hypothesis is essential for any investigation. This being so, we are faced with the difficult question how we are to set about to find the most suitable hypothesis. For this there can be no general rule. Logical thought by itself does not suffice- not even where it has an exceptionally large and manifold body of experience to aid it. The only possible method consists in immediately gripping the problem or in seizing up on some happy idea. Such an intellectual leap can be executed only by a lively and independent imagination and by a strong creative power, guided by an exact knowledge of the given facts so that it follows the right path.”
While Planck was an accomplished pianist, Einstein spoke relentlessly on the importance of his soul’s adherence to classical music and his love of playing Mozart on his violin. Both men played music together frequently, and both testified to the vital role of classical music’s performance in allowing them to leap beyond the constraints of logical deductive/inductive reasoning (aka: formal mathematics) which had prevented them from formulating fruitful hypotheses.
On music’s role in scientific discovery Einstein said:
“The theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six. My new discovery is the result of musical perception.”
In another essay, Einstein went even further to describe the role of a causality in a Bach fugue as a master key to unlock the mathematically unsolvable problems of the quantum and causality more generally:
“I believe that events in nature are controlled by a much stricter and closely binding law than we suspect today, when we speak of one event being the cause of another. Our concept here is confined to one happening within one time section. It is dissected from the whole process. Our present rough way of applying the causal principle is quite superficial… We are like a child who judges a poem by its rhyme, and not by its rhythm. Or, we are like a juvenile learner at the piano just relating one note to that which immediately precedes or follows. To an extent, this may be all very well, when one is dealing with simple compositions; but it will not do for the interpretation of a Bach fugue. Quantum physics has presented us with very complex processes, and to meet them, we must further enlarge and refine our concept of causality.”
To this author’s knowledge, nowhere was this idea best expressed in our modern age then in the short 17 minute video Is the Past Fixed?
Placing the Mind back in the Driver’s Seat
Instead of a new age of discoveries in space travel, peaceful development and atomic discoveries as envisioned by John F. Kennedy or Charles De Gaulle, the 20th century saw the formation of a new scientific priesthood as it was transformed into a consumer society cult attempting to forever “live in the elusive now”… ignorant of the past, fearful of the future and disdainful towards human nature. Ghouls and zombies like Karl Popper and George Soros arose to put into action sets of ideas that rejected the proven fruitful method of thought led by such scientists as Einstein, Planck and the great biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky who all concluded that if pure deductive / inductive logic fails to produce truth, then it is better to find a better definition of truth rather than assume lazily that it doesn’t exist.
So as mankind’s is pulled by a better open system paradigm led by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and other leaders of the Multipolar Alliance, let us be reminded of the wise words of Planck whose insight into the human condition cannot be revisited too often:
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature, and that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature, and therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Music and art are, to an extent, also attempts to solve, or at least express that mystery. But to my mind, the more we progress with either, the more we are brought into harmony with all nature itself. And that is one of the great services of science to the individual.”
The author delivered a 2015 lecture on this topic entitled Planck vs Russell: A Battle for Causality in the 20th Century which can be viewed here: