Jack Posobiec and Mike Benz challenged the concept of an “open society” during a recent exchange, arguing that the term has been used to disguise a modern form of centralized control exercised through global institutions and Western influence, rather than to promote genuine freedom.
Posobiec began by addressing what he described as confusion among some observers who view figures associated with the “open society” movement as historically aligned with freedom simply because they opposed the Soviet Union.
He argued that opposition to Soviet communism does not automatically equate to promoting liberty.
“Because there’s a lot of people that I see when they when they encounter some of these histories, they’ll say, wait a minute, so Soros was a good guy at first, etc.,” Posobiec said.
“Well, it’s almost like saying that, you know, you have communism, but then you also have globalism, and neither of them are actually producing freedom, and they are not open societies, as George Soros calls them, they are, in fact, a different form of totalitarianism.”
Posobiec described what he characterized as a system of control operating under the language of global cooperation and economic integration.
“It is Shadow totalitarianism. It is Shadow communism that is put under the guise of globalism and the guise of the World Economic Forum, and they create all these super national institutions and organizations to be able to claim that this is the new freedom,” he said.
He added that the outcomes of such systems reveal their true nature. “But we know, we know from the fruits of it that it is not freedom,” Posobiec said.
“So just because you were against the Soviet Union doesn’t mean you’re not peddling a new form of communism.”
Benz agreed with Posobiec’s assessment and argued that the “open society” framework collapses quickly when challenged by dissenting views.
“Right. No, that’s exactly true. There’s nothing open about the Open Society concept,” Benz said.
“When you dissent, look how fast the system snaps shut around you.”
As an example, Benz cited recent actions in Europe.
“Just today, it was, it was, as we’re recording this, it was announced that multiple journalists inside the European Union have been sanctioned for merely suggesting that Russia was going to win the war,” he said.
“For these are journalists for simply having an opinion about the war.”
Benz argued that this response demonstrates the limits of permissible discourse. “There’s nothing open about the Open Society,” he said.
“It just means open to our control the moment, the moment that control is threatened, watch how quickly the Open Society closes around you.”
According to Benz, the concept was never intended to foster openness in the traditional sense.
“But the fact is, is that that was a that was a pretext. It was a ruse,” he said.
“It was so to open it up to our to our influence and to our markets and to our control doesn’t doesn’t mean they want it genuinely open, means open to us.”
The discussion then turned to Ukraine, which Benz described as central to Western strategic interests.
“Now in Ukraine, is was the crown jewel of these maneuvers, because Ukraine has $14 trillion worth of natural resources,” Benz said.
“It is the gateway between East and West. It is the main point of transit for gas. Natural gas is entry into Europe.”
He continued by outlining Ukraine’s economic and geographic significance.
“It has unbelievable quantities of wheat and agriculture and arable land. It has the, the third largest petroleum reserves in all of Europe,” Benz said.
“It is, it is just an incredible bounty, as well as hosting the only warm water port to Russia through through the Black Sea and Crimea.”
Benz argued that Ukraine’s position makes it critical in broader geopolitical strategy.
“So tactically, if you want to control Russia, having control over Ukraine gets you there,” he said.
He added that Russia itself holds “$75 trillion worth of natural resources,” emphasizing why influence over the region has been a longstanding objective.
Reflecting on recent history, Benz pointed to earlier political upheavals in Ukraine.
“There were two color revolutions that were done to Ukraine, first in 2004 through the Orange Revolution, and then again in 2014 through the Euro Maidan Square revolution,” he said.
He noted that the latter has since been “rebranded as the so called Revolution of Dignity.”
Benz concluded by referencing visual evidence of the unrest.
“But if you go to BBC News and you look at the before and after pictures of the Euromaidan square, I think nothing quite shows in such vivid colors as the before and after pictures of what the square around the parliament building of Ukraine look like before and after the George Floyd style protests that were galvanized by John McCain,” he said.
WATCH:
.@MikeBenzCyber to @JackPosobiec: "There is nothing open about the open society concept. When you dissent, look how fast the system snaps shut around you." pic.twitter.com/DwRIl4Yndv
— Human Events (@HumanEvents) December 31, 2025
