As you already know, this is the place where I explore intricate dynamics of power, influence, and how individuals shape the world around them.
This deep curiosity naturally led me to examine one of the most polarizing figures of our time: George Soros. His name alone sparks controversy, speculation, and a myriad of conspiracy theories.
He’s either demonized or deified, rarely studied.
So people avoid the topic. They whisper, speculate, fantasize.
And a dangerous kind of intellectual omertà sets in.
I despise that.
Even high-level thinkers (people I deeply respect) often know shockingly little about Soros. Because the subject is radioactive. Tainted. Off-limits.
This piece is not about worship or conspiracy. It’s about understanding with clarity, with rigor, and with no agenda. Because when we refuse to think critically about power, we don’t become neutral: we become BLIND.
Determined to approach this complex individual analytically and without bias, I dove deeply into his personal history, philosophical writings, and psychological profile to better understand how and why he exerts such considerable influence.
What I'll be sharing here is the synthesis of weeks of obsessive researches. It's a bit longer than usual, for now I separated it in two main articles (another next week) but I might add a third one if you feel that this topic interests you.
Let's start!
My first explorative reflections...
George Soros is a man whose actions and strategies are profoundly shaped by trauma: specifically, the deep and enduring scars of transgenerational trauma linked to the persecutions of Jews - before the Shoah, and during.
Synaptic pruning and the Soros archetype
At the age of 13, the young Jew - George Soros - was litterally surviving the Shoah in Hungary. His father a well-respected lawyer made them false passports (real-false): the young boy was therefore living under a false identity (christian), witnessing a very rare type of systemic brutality (nazi brutality), navigating deception, and realizing that survival depends not on strength, but on perception, timing, and information.
When she told me about this, it brought me back to Soros.
I just realized that my analysis could even find an explanation in neuroscience. Soros was a young teenager when the Shoah happened.
That’s the moment his neural pathways froze around a singular truth:
“If you want to survive and shape the world, you must understand how systems work, and how fragile they are.”
The synaptic pruning that took place in his teenage brain likely locked in a deep distrust of authoritarian systems, a profound sense of existential precarity, and a belief that open societies, transparency, and pluralism are the only antidotes to systemic collapse.
In a very radical way.
His vision of the world is completely trauma-encoded.
But here’s the paradox:
- His answer to tyranny is not humility, but strategic control.
- Not transparency in all things, but managing who controls the narrative.
- Not just "freedom," but freedom curated by the enlightened few.
After all, he did not survive the Shoah by being transparent and humble.
No - his freedom required sacrifice. His freedom required to see people deported and not do a thing about it.
His freedom came at a very hard price, very far from the heroic vision we like to tell about survivors of such events.
This formative experience entrenched in him a permanent psychological state of survival mode, hypervigilance, and a compulsive need for control.
His strategic decisions and actions, often perceived as ruthless, cynical, or coldly pragmatic, are best understood as reflections of this survival mechanism.
Digging deeper, I observed how Soros’s traumatic past fostered an extraordinary skill in navigating ambiguity.
Forced to conceal his Jewish identity to survive under Nazi rule, he developed an acute ability for identity shifting, dissociation, and operating fluidly within ambiguous environments - the "grey zone".
This capacity to evolve in uncertainty feeds into his sophisticated strategies in finance, politics, and global influence, where ambiguity and unpredictability often reign.
Moreover, transgenerational trauma amplifies his worldview that perceives the environment as threatening, hostile, and chaotic. Before WWII, his father Tivadar Soros fought in WWI and spent some years in a Russian prison, he escaped. In 1936, he changed the family's surname from "Schwartz" to "Soros", feeling that Nazi Germani was about to invade Hungary.
At 13, Soros HAD to decode power. He learned:
- That appearances can be manipulated.
- That systems can be gamed.
- That chaos can be an opportunity.
I'm not saying he's good or evil.
I don't care about these judgements, I like to analyze the why.
You know - when people fantasize on conspiracy theories, generally the only unanswered question is: WHY would "they" want to do that?
Really - if someone wanted to control us all, what would be the actual reason ? Most of the time, the answer to this why is much more complex than the stupid reasoning given to us by these conspiracy theories.
Concerning Soros, this is what I observe, pragmatically and coldly. George Soros did not become a dictator. He became something far more elusive:
A strategic architect of influence, hiding behind the moral veil of philanthropy.
So what does this mean for us?
It means we must be cautious of worldviews born from trauma, especially when they scale globally. Because even if they aim for "good," they can carry the shadow of control and unresolved fear.
George Soros might somehow still be 13 years old, trying to make sure the system never turns against him again.
But when that 13-year-old controls billions - and shapes nations -
we're no longer talking about trauma. We're talking about civilizational architecture.