Monday, March 10, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

George Soros, quantum mechanics, and Ukraine

George Soros is arguably the world's most famous wealthy speculator. He has made most of his fortune by being malicious his whole life; and by being lucky in certain weeks. As a rich guy, he began to do a lot to harm the human society in the whole world. Instead of the term "a major sponsor of terrorist organizations in the whole world", some people often use the insane codeword "a philanthropist" to describe his activities.

I wouldn't count myself as a George Soros conspiracy theorist; the actions and influences that Soros and his hired guns are doing openly are enough for me to be alarmed.

He has paid certain organizations for their key contributions to many "revolutions" across the world, including those led by Saakashvili in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution as well as the 2014 Messy Revolution in Ukraine. When it comes to what is now officially called the global warming Nazism, he may be paying for a majority of income of these "activists" that doesn't come directly from the governments' coffers. I still think that many of the believers and activists are genuinely believing all the insanities they are saying and they are acting weirdly for free (some "clever" guys, however, are getting money both from the governments and from Soros-like sources) but it seems hard for me to estimate whether this particular movement could exist if George Soros were never born.

In Ukraine of 2014, there were many honest and sensible enough people who were dissatisfied with the situation in Ukraine. (I say it despite the fact that I disagree with most of the political opinions of these people, too.) There is a lot of things in Ukraine to be dissatisfied about; and the amount of these things is unlikely to drop too dramatically and too quickly in the near future. The source of disagreement is how to improve things, however, and what may be considered an improvement. However, the most important sources of the "force" behind the protests were the mostly fascist parties and movements such as Svoboda and the Right Sector.

They have also "won" lots of key chairs in the new government which is praised by many people in the West, despite the fact that the official EU organizations etc. urged everyone not to co-operate with similar parties and movements just a year ago or so. Now, when people from these parties seem to be climbing into many people's PC anal openings, it suddenly isn't a problem that they are fascists.

There were also many organizations on the ground, organizations that are euphemistically called the "NGOs". More accurate terms could be "terrorist organizations with large P.R. departments" or "private intelligence agencies connected to certain powerful interests". Top U.S. diplomat who cares about Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, revealed that the U.S. invested over $5 billion to destabilize the regime in Ukraine and to ignite the 2014 Messy Revolution. I think that this admission means that the U.S. government has been violating the rule 3 of the 1994 Budapest memorandum before others but let me not discuss these things here. By now, every major group has violated some laws in Ukraine.

This amount isn't including the contributions from George Soros. It may sound incredible but Soros' own contribution could have been comparable. His total wealth is $23 billion and between 1979 and 2011, he gave away $8 billion to various activities influencing politics etc. in the U.S. and in the world. Ukraine has probably represented a non-negligible fraction of this capital.

You could think that at the end of February 2014, days after almost 100 people (demonstrators and cops) died in Kiev, Soros must have been having twinges of conscience. But you would be wrong. On February 27th, Soros would write the following text:

Sustaining Ukraine's breakthrough: EU expertise and markets are essential
This particular link points to The Guardian (where the article only received 67 comments so far which is pretty incredible, given the influence of George Soros) but the original version of the text may be found at the "Project Syndicate" along with translations to many languages including Czech.

What did he say? And didn't I promise you to talk about quantum mechanics, too?

First, let me begin with the portions of the text I don't want to discuss. He was claiming that his Renaissance Foundation operating in Ukraine since 1990 wasn't participating but it would become important now, after the victory of the "revolution". He complains that the influence of Germany in Ukraine hasn't been too good so far and that a better management of the Ukrainian economy will be achieved in analogy with the Marshall Plan when the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will take the leadership.

These look like sort of innocent yet weird recommendations how to improve an economy. Note that EBRD recently refused to stop operating in Russia.

But I want to look at Soros' ideas about quantum mechanics and suicide bombers. His article begins with these propositions:
Following a crescendo of terrifying violence, the Ukrainian uprising has had a surprisingly positive outcome.
Well, the outcome doesn't certainly look positive to me so far.
Contrary to all rational expectations, a group of citizens armed with not much more than sticks and shields made of cardboard boxes and metal garbage-can lids overwhelmed a police force firing live ammunition.
They had just sticks. And also Molotov cocktails to burn the cops, to add a detail. And professionally trained snipers.
There were many casualties, but the citizens prevailed.
Only some citizens – although it is not clear to me why these particular people should be called "citizens" – temporarily and locally won some physical confrontations.
This was one of those historic moments that leave a lasting imprint on a society's collective memory.
When Shakhtar Donetsk played here in Pilsen on February 20th, the whole stadium would respect a minute of silence. So those were historic moments but pretty sad ones. Finally, Soros explains how this could happen. It's all about quantum mechanics:
How could such a thing happen? Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics offers a fitting metaphor. According to Heisenberg, subatomic phenomena can manifest themselves as particles or waves; similarly, human beings may alternate between behaving as individual particles or as components of a larger wave. In other words, the unpredictability of historical events like those in Ukraine has to do with an element of uncertainty in human identity.
The quantum mechanical particle-wave dualism may be identified with the individual-collective dualism of our identity, he is saying. When particles behave like waves, it's because they feel their membership in a collective. Except that this is exactly how quantum mechanics does not work. The wave phenomena (especially the interference pattern) occur in the double slit experiment not because of some interactions or cohesion or collective phenomena involving many particles. On the contrary, every individual particle has some wave-like properties. Every individual particle is associated with a wave – the wave function, a probability (amplitude) wave – which predicts the probabilities of various outcomes of any experiments. But you don't really need many particles of the same kind to test probabilistic predictions like that! And the interference pattern has surely nothing to do with the interactions of the particles with other particles which may be made de facto non-existent and the interference pattern is still there!

Soros' following paragraph said:
People's identity is made up of individual elements and elements of larger units to which they belong, and peoples' impact on reality depends on which elements dominate their behaviour. When civilians launched a suicidal attack on an armed force in Kiev on 20 February, their sense of representing "the nation" far outweighed their concern with their individual mortality. The result was to swing a deeply divided society from the verge of civil war to an unprecedented sense of unity.
I won't disagree that the ties to groups of other humans help to shape the identity of each person. On the other hand, the second sentence of the paragraph above is quite shocking: George Soros openly celebrates "suicide attackers". I can't believe that. It is so terrible. It's just wrong to use "suicidal attacks" (he uses this very term) to influence where the societies are going. Ukraine is less advanced than the traditional Western countries when it comes to the rule of law, the separation of wealth and politics, and so on, by you won't improve the situation if you "help" Ukraine to adopt the rules and standards of Al Qaeda.

The unequivocal support of George Soros for "suicidal attacks" makes me think that he could have hired the snipers who were shooting people on both sides himself. It's scary but it's compatible with all the data. The doctors and ammunition experts concluded that the dead cops and dead demonstrators were shot by the same snipers – with the same bullets and the same "handwriting" – and George Soros who is paying his own "NGOs" in Ukraine is openly celebrating "suicidal attacks" and the idea that these casualties have led to "positive outcomes". I don't have any rock-solid proofs for the most damning hypotheses but even the things that I explicitly see look pretty terrible to me.

The last sentence of the paragraph above is also stunning. Soros claims that the "suicidal attacks" have transformed a deeply divided Ukrainian society to one with an "unprecedented sense of unity". I can't believe he is serious; this is just so insane. The Ukrainian society has indeed been deeply divided – at least since the 1991 declaration of their independence but in reality, for 500+ previous years, too – but these divisions were kept in check by various people's moderate approach to the fragile equilibrium between the vastly different factions of the Ukrainian society, by their reticence, and indeed, by some official powers' efforts to calm down possible confrontations at the very beginning. What this 2014 Messy Revolution has unquestionably done was to polarize the Ukrainian society, to unleash and emphasize the hatred, and to make all the divisions far more visible and far more dangerous than ever before.

To talk about an "unprecedented sense of unity" in the situation we experienced two weeks ago (and we still mostly experience) that should have been described as an emerging civil (and not just civil) war – so far, thankfully, without much shooting – is beyond the pale. The people who don't really agree with the Maidan "winners" and "suicidal attackers" are still there in Ukraine – mostly (because a certain fraction of them has already emigrated to Russia). Parties with very different – and largely opposite – priorities than the Maidan had won the most recent democratic elections. Most of their backers don't feel any "sense of unity" with the Maidan-appointed government, surely not an "unprecedented" sense of unity. These "anti-Maidan" people clearly represent the majority of the society in Crimea but at least in Luhansk, Donetsk, and perhaps Kharkov (and the regions around these Eastern cities), the sentiments (and the outcomes of the confrontations) could be closer to those in Crimea than to those in Kiev. George Soros implicitly says that he doesn't want their opinions to matter at all. Maybe he is dreaming about a world where these people don't exist at all. They're probably not "citizens" for him. Only people paid by him or praising him and "suicide attackers" are citizens according to his definition of the word.

I am afraid that George Soros' ideas about the best ways to improve the society and to create a sense of unity are more shocking that his fundamental misunderstanding of the character of new phenomena in quantum mechanics.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (11) :

reader mr Nobody said...

Dear Lubos, i'm surprised you have so much in common with true communists in views on general situation in the world. (That's rather a positive sign).

I'm surprised you have a weighted and reasonable opinion about Ukraine and Russia, despite all that flood of lie in western media. You lived in US and probably saw by your own eyes how so called democracy works - one have a freedom to say only what's allowed to say, otherwise will be ostracized or not heard at all. Western society has rather self-censorship system, a system much more powerful compared to central-governed Eastern block's one.

One thing missing to turn you into communist - your beliefs on capitalism :)

Don't you see what US and EU politics is rather controlled by money/power eager scums and parasites, who will sell their own mother for a good price? A direct consequence of the capitalism.

Don't you think it's possible to organize a better economy - planned one to details (aren't supercomputer powers will goo enough soon?), rather than chicken-heartedly giving up the most important thing to inefficient chaos of capitalism?

reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, thanks for your sympathies. Of course, I can observe in my environment that my opinions on Ukraine are highly compatible with people who directly voted for left-wing parties, even or especially the communist party itself, but you should understand that the agreement probably disappears rather quickly when you look into any detail because the value compass is really opposite.

First, I think that Russia isn't really about "communism" in any sense today; on the contrary, I do think that e.g. George Soros on the other side of the conflict *is* a communist of a sort. He deserves the label "communist" more than Putin does. Those are subtle things - what we exactly mean by communism etc. - but the reason why these possibly diametrically opposite views don't really matter is the fact that the current conflict around Ukraine is really not about ideologies (well-defined, lasting systems of values or long-term universalist political goals); instead, they are mostly about particular nations and ethnic groups and their links and interests, regardless of their ideological preferences...

I don't want to react to your particular things because you must know that I would disagree with almost everything you say.

But the "need to verify what one hears in the media" is something that most people probably don't feel at all, so they get brainwashed all the time. I realized it was totally necessary when I was about 10 years old and caught Radio Free Europe on my radio for the first time (accidentally, I was recording that moment), sometime in 1983. It was exciting, I learned that it says rather different things than what I could hear in the official Czechoslovak communist press, so at least one of them had to be offering a vastly distorted message, so verification and independent thinking about the interpretations of facts even if the facts agree is just critically needed.

Some people, including "true communists", as you say, share this general viewpoint of mine. Most of the population sadly doesn't, I think.

reader Eugene Sirikh said...

your opinion fully compatible with мнение рашко-пидорашек, которые кричали "смерть предателям", когда танки трамбовали Прагу в 68. So be comfortable with this side you just took.

reader Brian Valentine said...

Many Hungarian are anti-Communist, and with good reason, excepting this one, who founded his own style of neo-Communism, which the world would be a lot better without.

Soros, lófasz a seggedbe.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Well, every invalid, loaded, or "ad absurdum" analogy leads to some absurd implications. I am quite comfortable with this fact.

I have repeatedly discussed why I won't accept that it is an analogous situation. Just to review a few first reasons.

1. The Czech lands belonged to the West for 900 years, Ukraine belonged to the East for these 900 years, so the USSR had no business to impose Eastern values here but they have all the historical justification to do it in Ukraine.

2. Czechoslovakia has never been incorporated into Russia before 1945 in any way; it is not "any form of Russia". One can't say the same thing about Ukraine which is the cradle of the Russian Empire and which means "borderland [of Russia]" and has only used two other names for this country throughout the history, namely "Kievan Rus" or "Little Russia".

3. The 1968 intervention was about the ideology, the desire of the communist countries to suppress human rights and economic freedom - and I do care about individual freedoms. This conflict in Ukraine is mostly about the tension between different nations and ethnic groups - and I don't care about trying to help one ethnic group against another.

4. There were virtually no ethnic Russians living in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Tens of millions of ethnic Russians live in Ukraine and their first-and-equal-citizenship status is being threatened by the new regime.

5. No authority that made the Prague Spring going was really planning or recommending any physical violence or resistence to the invaders. Tons of people are really doing these things in Ukraine. Dmitry Yarosh has even invited the top Chechen terrorist to cooperate.

6. The Prague Spring was really about the promotion of values and world view associated with people who are not complete losers, some kind of sophisticated traveling communists and intellectuals, among others. This 2014 Messy Revolution in Ukraine is led by the proletarians, the kind of unemployed and low-paid workers who have nothing to lose but their chains, and those are scary and counterproductive for the standards in a society.

7. The Warsaw Pact invasion in 1968 was the invasion of less developed, less cultural nations boasting a lower GDP per capita to a more developed, more cultural, and richer country. Now, Russia is invading a country that is more messed up and poorer than Russia itself.

8. The Warsaw Pact countries were decidedly non-democratic ones; Russia is an imperfect but democratic country today.

reader Jiri Moudry said...

Lubos, I am no friend of George Soros. You undoubtedly have a better understanding of quantum mechanics than he - or I. But as a self-made billionaire he probably has much better understanding of finances than you. A part of it is an ability to get reliable information. "The doctors and ammunition experts concluded that the dead cops and dead demonstrators were shot by the same snipers – with the same bullets" - link, please? Is it surprising that professional snipers use the best available ammunition? You seem to hurl "fascist" labels rather freely - undoubtedly there are some fascists there, but RT is not a reliable source of information. Regarding $5 billion of US aid over 23 years, that is about $5 per a citizen of Ukraine per year. Of course, just like in any corrupt country, probably most of it ended up in pockets of apparatchiks. Are the revolting now?

reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, sorry, Jiří, I just don't believe that someone understands finances very well just because he's rich especially because I know the story of his getting wealthy and none of this seems to require any good understanding of the financial world. The same comment applies not only to Soros but also e.g. to our "finance minister" Andrej Babiš. He is a billionaire but he is still a bumpkin, too.

I don't know which bullets the snipers were exactly using. They were probably good enough ones and ones that are not normally used by the government enforcement and special units because if it were so, they could have easily concluded where the wind was coming from.

I am not using the word "fascist" freely at all. I am using it extremely carefully for something that is rather well-defined. Out of 5796 blog posts on TRF, only 63%, about 1%, contains the word "fascist". It's surely not an overused word in my way of talking about the world and if you tried to suggest otherwise, you were demonstrably not saying the truth.

RT may be an imperfect source of information but this news agency or its counterpart is clearly one of the absolutely paramount sources of information for anyone who doesn't want to get brainwashed by a skewed propaganda.

Your way of humiliating $5 billion by dividing it to all citizens of Ukraine is a brutal sleight-of-hand. Sometimes the very same people want to justify their revolution by pointing out that someone connected to a government has earned $5 million, for example (e.g. about a pretty luxurious house where Yanukovitch lived), but if we talk about $5 billion which is 1,000 times more than that, you prefer idiotic proportionality games to pretend that it's almost nothing? Give me a break. You're just not being honest.

reader Jiri Moudry said...

The Estonian chap only spoke of "Olga". Olha Bohomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner: "Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."

You are free to go to RT if you don't want to get brainwashed. For another perspective, see

I don't share your high opinion of the effectiveness of American propaganda. Look how much popularity their billions bought them in Pakistan or Egypt. Their efforts are totally inept, and always have been. If you want to see "a staggeringly huge intervention into the inner affairs of that country", look at how much GAZPROM charges Ukraine.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I can't believe you are serious.

Concerning Bogomolets' denial, haven't you considered the idea that a pretty good reason for her denial would be a desire to survive?

The Olga described by the minister was unquestionably Olga Bogomolets.

reader Phelps said...

Never forget that George Soros was a Jewish Nazi collaborator. That's not a metaphor -- he was a Jewish teenager who collaborated with the Nazis against other Jews.

That tells you everything you need to know about the character of the man.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Right. Here is a fun Alex Jones rant about this issue: