🧵 THREAD: The worldview of George Soros, the self-styled Messiah...

He once admitted:
"If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood… But when I had made my way in the world I wanted to indulge my fantasies to the extent that I could afford."
And indulge them he did.
I’ve written many threads about Soros, but never one that lays out his ideology in full, why his money carried more weight than Rockefeller or Bezos, why his methods proved uniquely disruptive.
Soros’s time is running short. But the system he engineered, the ripple effects of his philosophy, will outlive him by generations.
The question isn’t whether we agree with him. It’s whether we’re willing to study his playbook... and use the same tools ourselves.
Stay with me as I pull this thread together.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he developed a financial theory called reflexivity. He went onto applying it to be one of the most successful hedge fund managers ever, if not hte most successful.
He found that it applied to history as well as finances and used it to hasten the Soviet Union's collapse.
A startup may initially have nothing than hype. Investors throw millions at it anyway.
Then the startup starts hiring coders, marketers, etc. Now the hype is real! The product is real!
Until it all crashes.
As my husband put it, reflexivity assumes "everything is a Ponzi scheme."
To Soros, everything -- stocks, history, currencies -- lies on some point in that cycle.
A big part of why his methodology hasn't been reproduced is because he was independent. He made big, all-in moves repeatedly. Your average trader at an institutional company is beholden to a process and might be fired for one wrong big trade.
People have told me - no, Soros twisted Karl Popper, Popper wanted freedoms and hated tyranny.
I argue the opposite. Soros carried out Popper's ideology more loyally than anyone.
Every single one of Lenin's infamous 21 Conditions which created the tyranny of Communist states is found in Marx's writings. Lenin only codified them.
And the logical institutional end of purity, it turns out, is the one-party dictatorship.
"All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders' attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man."
She also similarly told her followers to never join any "impure" organizations such as libertarians.
It sounds good, until you realize that sows the seeds of anti-faith, anti-tradition, and anti-patriotism.
This is the "hidden clause" within Popper. It has credentialism built into it.
But pluralism, when carried to its logical conclusion, is inherently corrosive of any fixed loyalties. If no one can claim binding truth, then no institution can demand unquestioned allegiance.
The end state of pure pluralism is a society in which every bond must be continuously renegotiated, and nothing is taken as given.
Even though Popper and Communism were opposing ideologies!
The Soviet Union demanded total purity, and total adherence to its views. To carry that out, it required a total monopoly over the media.
That in itself created a "contradiction" waiting to be exploited: people continued to support Communism under the yoke of gulags and starvation, but only as long as they could not see the reality of their situation contrasted with much more prosperous countries.
A declassified CIA document estimates that the Soviet Union ended up spending 15 times more to catch up on their own version of SDI than USA did.
Soros engaged in proxy war from *within.* He was not bound by any country or treaty and could do as he wished, especially as he was a dual citizen -- a citizen of Hungary, an Iron Curtain state.
And so he started in 1984.
In markets, Soros would identify a currency or asset that was overvalued because traders believed in its strength. He would build a massive short position, betting on its weakness. Once others noticed the cracks, their rush to unwind reinforced the downward spiral, and the perception of stability collapsed into a rout.
This seems small -- but the impact was disproportionate, precisely because he identified and squeezed the contradiction of Communism.
He "squeezed" the contradiction that globalism, although based on liberal pluralistic foundations, is not actually pluralistic or liberal... by buying Twitter and allowing free speech.
And since then, X has been non-stop exposing the tyranny of globalists.
When financial pressures hit the USSR from a perfect storm of military commitments, oil price crashes, and being extremely reliant on food imports -- Gorbachev started the policy of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness).
Soros immediately took advantage of that.
USSR codified the "Cultural Initiative" and gave it sweeping powers, including freedom from taxes and freedom to engage in any economic activity. Soros compared the power he wielded to the East India Company.
It was not long until Communist legitimacy began to be eroded. It culminated in a coup by USSR hard-liners which attempted to restore censorship and other Communist reforms.
A coup that lasted only three days, ended with Gorbachev weakened and Yeltsin victorious.
But I hope this thread gives you an idea of Soros' ideology, reflexivity, and what we can learn from it.
Thank you for reading!
I try to not to project religion into governance, but I believe Christianity justifies pluralism as an inherent feature of godly governance.
Paul wrote in Romans 7:18: "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
And again in Philippians 3:12: "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own."
We will remain sinful creatures, until our death. As Jeremiah 17:9 says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
What this implies is: Objective truth exists, but no human has the ability to interpret and pass down truth perfectly.
The difference between globalism and the United States of America is that globalism's epistemological foundation is pluralism above all.
The United States, by contrast, created its epistemological foundation on natural rights.
Both imply pluralism, but have very different implications as to how governance is done.
There's a reason I keep saying that nobody is totally good or totally evil.



















