[hyperdunc]

Many nationalists and traditionalists hate him because he doesn't share their values. Rather, he uses his wealth to influence the movement of power from national to supranational institutions.

In particular the Soros-sponsored Open Society Foundation has had many dozens of meetings with the EU Commission and a hand in forming multicultural-based policies.

My own thought is that this political agenda is naive and may result in a backlash that ends up achieving the opposite of what he intends. There are already signs of this happening.

[RealityVoid]

In your view - are "open societies" as an idea naive or the means of achieving them employed naive? You might very well be right, but imagine desiring a more open world, what would be the correct course to achieve it?

Also, what would be the mechanisms you would employ if you were a person with lots of money and desiring to shape the world into a better place? One approach is the one taken by Bill Gates, where he focuses on technological and social ones, but steers away from the political issues. But lots and lots of evil from this world stems from political reasons. Surely there should be a way to improve that, besides just focusing on the technical and hoping the politics would sort itself out.

[hyperdunc]

The means are naive. I hope we eventually achieve an open world, but right now societies are different enough that authoritarian impulses toward integration seem foolish, especially when they alienate large swathes of the citizenry.

I don't have any specific thoughts on what policies should be followed, just a sense that a slower and more organic course is preferable. Even then, reactionary forces will always exist.