The Soros-obsessed present him as the only agent, a "puppet-master" solely responsible for developments that actually require whole ruling classes, industries, states and ideologies.
What would have been different if there had been no Soros?
Sounder » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:25 pm wrote:Jack wrote...The Soros-obsessed present him as the only agent, a "puppet-master" solely responsible for developments that actually require whole ruling classes, industries, states and ideologies.
Not true, you assert that others present Soros as the ‘only agent’. Of course it is to your advantage to frame the issue with an absurdity coming from critics.
Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders. This has recently been shown very clearly with his funding of the European refugee crisis.
The refugee crisis has been blamed on the civil war currently raging in Syria. But did you ever wonder how all these people suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in?
The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It coincided with OSF donating money to the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, both Soros-sponsored organizations. Both groups advocate the resettlement of third-world Muslims into Europe.
In 2015, a Sky News reporter found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. It was later revealed that the handbooks, which are written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU.”
Welcome to the EU is funded by—you guessed it—the Open Society Foundations.
Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of third-world migrants into Europe, he in fact is the architect of the “Merkel Plan.”
The Merkel Plan was created by the European Stability Initiative whose chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at none other than the Open Society Foundations.
The plan proposes that Germany should grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees. It also states that Germany, along with other European nations, should agree to help Turkey, a country that’s 98% Muslim, gain visa-free travel within the EU starting in 2016.
Sounder » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:36 pm wrote: You (Jack) are the obsessed one, obsessed with fear that you may be an idiot.
That might even have something to do with your anger issues.
JackRiddler » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:32 pm wrote:The Soros-obsessed present him as the only agent, a "puppet-master" solely responsible for developments that actually require whole ruling classes, industries, states and ideologies. What would have been different if there had been no Soros?
Capitalism would still work the way it does (the way he sometimes actually describes it as working, when he plays the intellectual). Without Soros, the pound would still have dropped against the mark and some other bond vigilantes would have seized the windfall. (Quick, who were the bond vigilantes who attacked the franc during Mitterand's attempt at Keynesianism? They made billions in windfall by financial aggression, when they saw they could. Why can't any of us name them?)
For all the causes Soros supports, when did his support not rhyme with State Department policy? And when did his support make the difference? There is a whole world of NGOs beyond those he funds, and many of them with the same thrust. I'm not saying Soros' initiatives never made a difference, I'm saying you can rarely know for sure when and how they did; and furthermore, you can know that the big outlines of history would have run the same way.
Without Soros, the EU would have expanded and put through EMU. The Berlin wall would have fallen, the post-communist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe would have privatized their economies and overseen many years of plunder and oligarch-mafioso rule. The Asian bubble would have popped. The bubbles would have kept popping.
Did Soros select Bush? US-UK would have invaded Iraq, initiating the disintegration of the Middle East. The Arab peoples would have risen up against their regimes. The oil kingdoms would have struck back with U.S. backing. The wars in Ukraine and Syria would still be happening. The refugees would still be fleeing conflicts all over the planet. The nationalist paranoids would still be hating the refugees and blaming some theoretical dark forces for sending the refugees by plan. The left would still be calling the nationalist paranoids racists and Islamophobes.
The article like the one posted by Sounder above, with its Soros-driven monocausal theory of history, largely based on the work of the demented David Horowitz, is fucking insane. Unlike with the article's failure to point out that Horowitz is an ultra-hardcore Likudnik, however, among the Soros-obsessives the "Zionist" tag as the primary label for Soros is never far behind. That's why he's so much more a subject for the Soros-obsessives than the Kochs, Gates, Zuckerberg (though I'm waiting for that one), Carlos Slim, or the Davos set generally. He's no more credible than any of them as a lone evil mastermind driving all political events according to his own plan, but he's so very Jewish! And also configures as "liberal," whatever that means.
Soros has been "treated" on this site all the time, for many years, there are many threads -- why the proliferation with this one and its pretend-naive, odious titling? (That's rhetorical because it's obvious.)
Harvey » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:38 pm wrote:It's in the air just now. Everyone's feeling it, even if they don't know what it is they're feeling.
Lovers will love, haters hate, makers make, soldiers fight, sailors sail, poets sing. The worst are certainly worsting but right now the best can best. Unless they lack all conviction.
kool maudit » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:12 am wrote:Soros' foundation works within the tensions between the traditional and the modern – that's his inflexion-point of choice.
This is obviously an incursion against the right, and leftists are right to either downplay or underemphasise it.
I know a lot of people at orgs funded by OSF in various ways, and these are generally just Guardian-type people writing Guardian-type things because it's what they think is best. The hand isn't notably heavy.
That said, this particular type of influence is potentially of interest to people on both the right and the left who favour the local over the transnational, the small over the large, or the particular over the general.
But we're not going to get a bipartisan thing going on Soros and that's just that.
JackRiddler » 10 Sep 2016 16:39 wrote:2015 estimates of personal wealth, U.S. top 16 - you never know how accurate the sum for each (they don't know themselves) due to variable asset valuations, holding companies controlling much larger assets, global assets in other currencies, front owners, offshore reserves, etc. Somehow Peterson's not on the list. Thiel's at 234. Obvious omission that nationality is no limit, e.g., who out of the top 400 globally isn't going to have American assets and interests and possibly be based in the U.S., etc.
Is there a list estimating the associated philanthropies? Gates "gave away" half his fortune to his and its equity is on the scale of 70, 80 billion.
#1 Bill Gates $76 B 60 Medina, WA Microsoft
#2 Warren Buffett $62 B 86 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
#3 Larry Ellison $47.5 B 72 Woodside, CA Oracle
#4 Jeff Bezos $47 B 52 Seattle, WA Amazon.com
#5 Charles Koch $41 B 80 Wichita, KS diversified
#5 David Koch $41 B 76 New York, NY diversified
#7 Mark Zuckerberg $40.3 B 32 Palo Alto, CA Facebook
#8 Michael Bloomberg $38.6 B 74 New York, NY Bloomberg LP
#9 Jim Walton $33.7 B 68 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
#10 Larry Page $33.3 B 43 Palo Alto, CA Google
#11 Sergey Brin $32.6 B 43 Los Altos, CA Google
#12 Alice Walton $32 B 66 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
#13 S. Robson Walton $31.7 B 71 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
#14 Christy Walton $30.2 B 67 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart
#15 Sheldon Adelson $26 B 83 Las Vegas, NV casinos
#16 George Soros $24.5 B 86 Katonah, NY hedge funds
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests