Soros, the Open Society Foundations, and the Continued Political Hacks
riskbasedsecurity.com
riskbasedsecurity.com
For this reason it's essential that some security experts outside the standard government contractor "experts" validate or at least weigh the evidence implicating the Russian state as the attackers.
- Security contractors have financial interests in going along with the popular political line / pleasing the govt.
- Groupthink
- Russian actor involvement does not mean Russian state involvement
- There's benefit in claiming, only a state actor could have done this, to defend one's security system that is in fact weak enough that several non-state actors could have penetrated it
2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.
3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."
4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.
5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.
6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.
7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.
8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.
#5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well.
#7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense.
#8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.
In mid-June, Democratic Party suspicions about the hackers seemed to be confirmed when CrowdStrike, an outside security firm retained by the DNC, reported that it traced the hackers to two separate units linked to Russia’s security services: the FSB, Russia’s equivalent of the FBI, and GRU, the country’s military intelligence agency.
5.) Trump explicitly said "russia, if you're listening, i hope you find hillary's emails"
7.) you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth, and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries
8.) trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-nato-new-york-ti...
[0]https://files.sans.org/summit/Digital_Forensics_and_Incident...
More concerning is apparently our leaders can now deflect proof of misconduct by making unproven allegations against Russia.
As opposed to the rags to riches dynasties running the US government one after another.
> and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries
Really? You want to play that game after the US has meddled in half the world and assassinated and deposed democratically elected leaders then installed dictators?
>trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it
Of course they would, they are all interventionist NEOCONs.
What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.
Now the question, does it matter ? If the emails are legit it is the only thing that counts.
The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed.
"evidence"
You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?
>> 8) anti-NATO stance Nope. This is actually really really wrong. What is being covered as his anti-NATO stance is a position the US has nailed on quietly for years. As someone who grew up in a Canadian military family, I heard the same criticism for years around the dinner table. A lot of nations, Canada included, do not contribute our fair share to our collective security. For decades Canada has signed on to NATO commitments but our government (liberal, more so than the conservatives) for just as long as yet to put pass the budgets in order to meet those commitments.
One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. The american tax payer is paying for the lion share of our collective security, and our current security environment has been suffering a tragedy of the commons.
>>Trump and NATO pivot to terrorism
One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. We actually fought and put the necessary dollars to support that fighting. We had to lease transport planes, but eventually spend the billions to buy our own, we upgraded equipment. In terms of spending, we took our military from using 1980s equipment (the prior combat uniform was drab olive) to a fighting military contemporary of 2007.
Britain also met commitments, and, likewise, America did to. Other nations (like france, germany, poland) were reluctant to put their soldiers in combat roles and avoided risks. The issue in Afghanistan highlighted the relucantance and lack of incentive for france, germany and poland to incorporate their troops within a NATO joint chain of command because of their reluctance to see their troops engage in combat.
None of these two issues that Trump has spoken about (NATO in Afghanistan and how horrible it was), and NATO as collective security, is him speaking about disbanding NATO. You americans paid a lot more for our collective security than the EU does, or canada (as percentage of GDP). And because of the tragedy of the commons, leaders will not spend more, or take more risks unless they have to, which NATO has proven year after year, that they wont unless they feel threatened. They would rather direct that budget to domestic needs and get a free ride from you, the american tax payer.
> 7) Trump calling Putin better than Obama Trump believes Obama is the worst thing ever.
Nah, nah. There's two things NATO is about: (a) keeping money flowing in these economic empires and involved countries; (b) protecting the security of them. Money first, citizen safety second. Always in that order. Otherwise, U.S., U.K., France, etc wouldn't have screwed with so many Middle Eastern, Latino, etc countries for their resources in bloody wars. So, that's the game.
Now, what of security? Wait, I know what you mean: U.S.-directed spending on military activities that profit U.S. defense contractors. The revolving door where defense contractors bribe Congress reps, hire Pentagon people for six digits, and get billions in contracts from same people. They build tons of stuff with no proven value on top of what has value. They have cost overruns due to mismanagement. They get involved in various forms of fraud and shoddy work. They pocket billions in process with tens of millions to their executives & Congress people's stock going up. America, with many starving and poorly educated, spends as much money as possible on these defense contractors' bottom lines... more than many others put together... while the other countries spend more on infrastructure, medical, school, etc.
In such a situation, it's 100% reasonable not to match the spending of the U.S.. Matter of fact, countries should brag on not running their defense so foolishly. Any money they spend will probably just make some American executives or legislators wealthier. The problem here is American corruption and defense spending. That industry needs to get their shit together. The corruption won't go away. So, I've just asked they create jobs and line pockets building stuff that's actually useful in modern warfare. If they want spare soldiers, have them fix our crumbling highways and stuff when they aren't killing foreigners for questionable reasons. Should just get something out of our tax dollars like, say, Canadians are.
"One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. "
Wow. Thought you were American up to that comment as most countries are aware that was BS. Bush Sr and CIA funded terrorists in Afghanistan, training them to fight a superpower. U.S. govt also funded Sadaam in Iraq to tune of $600+ million in fight against Iran. We fought them since, as CIA admitted in 2013, we overthrew their government and installed dictator to help Britain steal their oil. Funded Sadaams war against them to punish their resistance. Slammed him when he resisted the meddling. Eventually, the Saudi terrorist they trained & supported brought a bunch of Saudi friends brainwashed by Saudi extremist religion into the U.S. to murder 3,000+ of us. U.S. response should've been to stop meddling, start some apologies w/ reconstruction money, and smash the hell out of Saudi Arabia until they stop promoting extremism. Instead, they convinced a bunch of people to smash Afghanistan and Iraq while walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king and training their military to be more effective.
Yeah, you shouldn't be proud of your country sacrificing its people to support American imperialism and mass-murder in the Middle East. Those countries you knocked just used their brains. They decided they shouldn't die to make American politicians happy or U.S. defense contractors richer ($300+ billion richer). Now, those countries are destabilized plus ISIS formed in the wake threatening to kill more of us. Great. (thumbs up)
Seriously, I know the subject of politics is very opinion base, but there are departments in universities across many lands that attempt to study these systems. Like, look how pathetically anti-war, super-simplified, black/white narrative fitting your perspective is: "war exist to fund defense contractors".
oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims. You are just pulling stuff out of your crack. NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members and the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands.
You made that up yourself. I said most of our military actions were about pushing politics or capitalism. Which the evidence supports, including many declassified documents. I said military spending in U.S. is excessive, has tons of failed programs, is justified by bribes/votes, and mostly lines pockets of defense contractors and Congress reps. U.S. records give me proof of first two, Congress records have proof of next (i.e. lobbying), and annual reports + track records show proof of last. You're straight-up reciting propaganda of U.S. military connected outfits that contradict results in their own documents. Such contradictions are confusing until you realize they can lie in some places and it's a felony in others. ;)
"oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims."
Sure I am. You implied the U.S. spending is actually about the security of us and NATO. It's provably not. It's a mix of profiteering, waste, and security expenses. Of the security expenses, it's a mix of useless stuff given modern battlefield and stuff that's actually useful which usually costs far less. Your whole spending claim is bogus if it relies on false belief that U.S. military spending is about security. It's partly false if it believes that the small portion spent on security actually improves security. Most is again about jobs (eg votes in key districts), campaign contributions to Congress, military heads getting promoted for appearing to improve something, and so on.
"NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members"
And since you're belief is false, those that correctly realize most U.S. military spending has no value shouldn't try to support or match that. They should instead just buy what has value in their country spending a tiny fraction on that. Your recent claim supports they are doing this. Smart.
"the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands."
Joint commands fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the initiator of the war admitting in declassified documents they funded and created the enemies. Their newest war was projected to create even more. (It did.) That nations are reluctant to support those deployments is again the wise choice. Their citizens or targets shouldn't die for greed or politics.
Cool, so you are going to confuse Iraq with Afghanistan. clap
You are transparent and single dimension. In your narrative, you have erased any possibility that the cost borne by the American people in funding their military can contribute to global security. This is utterly utterly wrong and provenly so when allies who depend on US for security (but do not contribute back) place pressure on the US to develop and deploy technology and material for their defense. But then again, for someone who can only see THAAD is just a mix of profiteering,pork, cronyism, waste and other write offs, I am sure you know better than the false beliefs Korea holds for trying to acquire this useless development.
Again, your narrative isn't new. You haven't demonstrated my beliefs are false (again, if NATO is worthless, why does these nations make commitments they won't keep, why don't they simply leave NATO?) The only thing you have demonstrated is the ontogeny of your beliefs. It is one developed by someone who wants to understand the world through a very simplified lens, a black and white, war exist to fund defense contractors with the evil capitalist pulling some levers, and crony politicians patting each other's backs, not someone who wants to see security as is.
In other words you don't know. Those are weasel words
also, there are proof dugged up by the great american press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-...
"Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012"
There is the logic of polarisation, of fight - both sides use whatever comes their way to weaken the opposite. Russia wants to weaken the USA, so they expose the political dirt to destabilize, and that works in the short term - but I like to think that in the long term it removes the dirt and makes the free system stronger.
The same thing: https://stopagitprop.com/2016/08/13/exposing-edward-snowden-... - it escapes them that sometimes to reform and to make the system better in the long term you need to weaken it in the short term.
Update:
And yet the same thing with the ex-soviet spies (for example https://www.google.pl/search?q=ex-soviet+spy+youtube) who defected to the west - all they see is the destabilisation caused by the western activists - they don't see how the whole value of the west is based on the improvements that happen because of the activism.
And this is not to say that there is no danger of destabilisation - it is a dangerous thing - as we have seen in the Near East recently. But we must face the danger with courage - because giving up the freedoms would make the western system the same as the other side. And it is probably not as dangerous as the dictatorship agents thinks it is. The dictatorships have a lot of internal tensions - if the dictator looses grip - it all goes boom - but in a democracy the tensions are released in small portions - by the activism.
Technicalities aside, these "revelations" should serve as a reminder that when it comes to politics (including every version of democracy), there is a shiny veneer of righteousness, and underneath is intricate machinery that serves the sole purpose of controlling and manipulating the population. Both the US and Russia are extremely good at this in their own ways. The Cold War presented plenty of opportunities to refine the craft.
Mutually assured destruction is a hell of a deterrent.
Full on cyber war to me looks like a erased economy by zeroing every asset and liability in the banks and funds, with pre-corrupted backups. It looks like bricked firmware on every router, industrial process controller, police/fire radio system, public utilities, even vehicles. It would be like an EMP hit. With nobody getting paid, no emergency services or utilities, public unrest would do all the work.
If they do it right, it's like Einstein's quote about world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Why brick routers and SCADA systems, and not spread malware or cause damage?
Why shut down the police/fire radio system, and not air false calls?
Chaos and misinformation is more useful than simply shutting it all down.
Further: US oligarchy[1][2]/establishment/(self proclaimed) elite blames Russia for every leak where they look bad. As if there are no real US American patriots who, unsatisfied with the course that same oligarchy has taken in the last 25 years, want to expose it and try to change it.
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s...
I'm sure he's just a concerned citizen.
You'd think with the number of high profile cyber-sec wonks on here beating the It Was Russia™ drum, I wonder what they would think of Binney's statements, and technicalities he points out absent from such hollow saber rattling?
Then again, if what took place in the shadows is coming to light is true and can be cross verified, then you'd think that would ultimately be valuable to the public…
Most of the anti-Soros conspiracies I have heard have been obviously either ideologically driven or transparent pieces of realpolitik. On balance I'd still bet on the man being motivated by altruism even if you conclude he is wrong-headed in the his beliefs or methods.
The open borders zealots like Soros never seem to have a clear answer to this.
It comes back to a tendency that I feel more and more is the most pernicious influence of all in the public sphere - the inability of people to believe that those on the other side of a debate are reasonable, rational, intelligent people who are doing their best to solve difficult problems. We (and I include myself here) have a deep-rooted impulse to characterise the other side as either charlatans, crooks or imbeciles.
Taking someone seriously who has reached different conclusions to oneself or has a different worldview triggers such cognitive dissonance that we'd prefer to ascribe to them either nefarious motives or else some kind of mental deficiency.
Soros is a financial speculator, so he literally makes money off chaos. He made his billions by betting against the Bank of England. Everything he is doing to destabilize Europe and the West makes perfect sense from his point of view. He is simply rationally maximizing his own utility given the tools at his disposal. This isn't immoral, its rationally amoral.
Soros is the perfect counterexample to libertarian fantasies of rational self-interest-run societies. Because it becomes very clear very quickly that one person's self interest is another person's dystopian nightmare.
Childish good and evil narratives don't apply here. It is just a very clear case of good intentions causing immense harm. When there is profit to be made off chaos, you are economically incentivizing it, and will receive more of it.
All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions.
So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-term effects of his actions.
Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.
I remind you that Soros (through his Open Society Foundations) supports illegal immigration and people smuggling into the EU: http://news.sky.com/story/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-mi...
His organizations and owned media regularly attack every politician or activist who is against uncontrolled immigration, all over the Europe.
His goal apparently is to induce religious and racial tensions, destabilize Europe with them and finally break the EU (he already achieves that, see Brexit). And who benefits the most on European countries problems and EU dismantle?
Russia.
There are a lot of humanitarian reasons why someone might support migration to Europe from an active war zone, you know.
What slowly turns Europe into active war zone itself...
It's not about 'political agenda I disagree', it's about actions and their results.
If OSF wants more immigrants in EU, they should buy flight tickets, and sponsor visa applications.
I'm not surprised he'd be pro refugee. He was a refugee himself.
- national borders as the obstacle
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-30/orban-accu...
- at least a million asylum-seekers annually
First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-a...
- provide €15,000 per migrant
- EU should borrow money to finance that
The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity, which will have the added benefit of providing a justified fiscal stimulus to the European economy.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-a...
- new EU-wide tax to repay these debts
Member states could raise new tax revenue in order to fund what is needed.
The answer is that the EU and its member states must find new sources of tax revenue, and do so in a way that spreads the repayment obligation as widely as possible. This could be done by levying special EU-wide taxes. The new tax revenue could come from a variety of sources, including the EU-wide VAT, which already provides revenue to the EU; a special tax on gasoline...
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/09/europe-how-pay-for-r...
Well, to be spitefully exact, the government of Israel (jackasses that they are!) seems to believe roughly the same thing, especially given Soros' funding of Palestinian activist organizations.
Soros' agenda doesn't have to be card-carryingly evil in order to go against the will of the voters.
Why I believe that Soros is crazy aside from the contents of this leak: He collaborated with the Nazis to profit over the death of Jews even though he is Jewish himself. And then he later bragged about how much money he made this way without showing any regret for his actions.
The leaks also show that he financially supports Palestinian organisations to this day that have the goal to destroy Israel.
Our leaders must be crazy themselves because they apparently hold his views on various self destructive policies in highest regards.
I really wonder what kind of drugs they were on when they decided that it would be a good idea to import millions of illiterate, young men from an alien culture that hates us. We now have terror attacks here in the EU on a regular basis and the rise in violence and rapes can't be hidden anymore.
I guess some men and women just want to see the world burn.
Not only do the elites not see themselves as the same people as us, they fear strong middle classes as a legitimate threat to their power. Mass immigration is just one of many steps towards creating a population that can be ruled by force without accountability.
So Soros's agenda is to help Russia? That makes no sense.
"others have made assertions", wow that's some damning evidence! Such garbage on HN
We'll see if anything interesting comes out but it might just make Soros's supporters further assured he's on their side and attempting to do what he and his organization says they're attempting to do.