It’s the End of the World as We Know It (reprise)

 

George Soros, el magnate ultra liberal, filántropo (¿una contradicción en los términos?), alumno de Karl Popper (su cuento de la “sociedad abierta” es Popper para empresarios), opositor de Bush y sus compadres, ha afirmado que la civilización occidental está en sus últimas.

Parece que estamos realmente jodidos. Al apocalíptico informe sobre el calentamiento global que ventilaron las Naciones Unidas, que tantos conciertos ayudará a promover, y que tantos políticos hace rato aprovechan como plataforma electoral (empezando por Al Gore), se le suman ahora estas declaraciones del supermillonario Húngaro: “¿Qué viene después?, quien sabe. Pero el calentamiento global, la amenaza nuclear, la crisis de los recursos y la guerra contra el terror son peligros que indican que existe una fuerte probabilidad -afirma- de que la civilización occidental se dirige a su fin”, dijo en una entrevista, y repite en foros y conferencias en apoyo a su libro “The Age of Fallibility”, publicado en junio de 2006. El libro es menos amarillista en sus afirmaciones, como puede verse en este extracto de su introducción (leala completa aquí):

“To build my case, I must start at the deep end by exploring the relationship between thinking and reality. This will be an abstract, philosophical discussion, but if I am right in saying that misconceptions play a prominent role in history, I cannot avoid it. I contend that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect and all human constructs are flawed in one way or another. Open societies recognize our fallibility, closed societies deny it. America is an open society, but people are not well versed in philosophy and they do not fully understand the principles of open society. That is how they came to be misled. To make that argument, I must explain the concept of open society.

I have made the philosophical discussion in Part One as readable as possible and it will help make the arguments in Part Two more powerful. For instance, I explain that the truth is not as self-evident as the Founding Fathers thought when they signed the Declaration of Independence. We have discovered since then that the truth can be manipulated. To persist in the pursuit of truth, we must realize that false metaphors and other misconceptions can have unintended adverse consequences. That awareness is lacking in a large part of the electorate. hose who are not interested in this argument should turn directly to the second part of the book. In Part Two, I address what I consider to be the most pressing problems of the present moment in history: the present dangers to America as an open society; the failings of the European Union as an open society; the difficulties in spreading democracy; the lack of a legitimate international community capable of exercising the responsibility to protect; the global energy crisis, and nuclear proliferation. I cannot claim the same kind of validity for my views on these subjects as I do for the conceptual framework. It would invalidate my framework if I did. As a participant, I cannot avoid bringing my biases to bear. My bias is already visible in the selection of the problem areas.

Here is a broad outline of the main argument of Part Two: American has fallen into the hands of extremist ideologues, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who believe that the truth can be success fully manipulated. They have successfully manipulated a born-again president and a feel-good public. But there is a reality that exceeds heir comprehension and that has rendered their policies counterproductive. The root cause of trouble is a false metaphor, the war on terror. It has done terrible damage to our standing in the world and endangered our open society at home; yet it is still generally accepted as the natural response to 9/11. I detail the damage and argue that it is largely self-inflicted by the willful misinterpretation of reality. We cannot start repairing the damage until we repudiate the false metaphor of the war on terror. We must do more than just revert to the policies we pursued prior to 9/11. We must recognize that as the dominant power in the world we have a special responsibility. In addition to protecting our national interests, we must take the leadership in protecting the common interests of humanity. I go into some detail as to what that entails.

Mankind’s power over nature has increased cumulatively while its ability to govern itself has not kept pace. There is no other country that can take the place of the United States in the foreseeable future. If the United States fails to provide the right kind of leadership our civilization may destroy itself. That is the unpleasant reality that confronts us”.

Para hacerle oposición a Bush y sus amigos no es necesario recurrir al sensacionalismo apocalíptico, como se ve arriba. Creo que Soros tiene claro por qué estos fanáticos ultra godos son un problema para la civilización (los del opus parecen mamertos a su lado).

 

¿Por qué le dio por decir ahora que occidente llega a su fin? Si se refiere a la falta de apoyo a las iniciativas realmente democráticas, de respeto al disenso, basadas en la igualdad de todos los hombres proclamada por occidente desde la Ilustración (¿recuerda Guantánamo, la punta del iceberg del régimen de Bush? ¿La legislación antiterrorismo en Gran Bretaña y otros países?), hasta puede que sí, pero eso es cuento viejo. A occidente lo están enterrando desde siempre. Spengler propuso ya hacia 1920 la decadencia de occidente, y desde entonces cada rato la recuerdan. Lo de la crisis de los valores democráticos tampoco es nuevo, es sólo que ahora ha llegado a topes preocupantes en muchas partes del mundo.

Con este cuento de la caída de occidente ya van a comenzar a especular con la futura hegemonía china, el poderío ruso, la llegada del anticristo (!Chávez¡)…

Y usted, ¿Qué va a hacer el domingo respecto a la visita de Bush?