Hacker News Reader

Comment by zakk | Hacker News Reader

On the hand hand, Trump supporters are claiming that Soros is -- more or less legally -- financing left wing organisations and influencing the political debate in many countries.

You know what? Both of them are right, and actually this is not a new phenomenon, rich people have been influencing democracy for a long time now.

View on HN

A difference i see is that Soros is supporting organisations that are acting according to their charters and stated aims.

Very often this activity puts them add odds with the local strongman like Orban in hungary.

I have not seen support of widespread deception of this organisations to achieve some hidden agendas.

So, i do think it is legitimate to discuss the role of NGOs in society or the specific aims of Soros NGOs.

But this is a far cry from, for example russia, financing front organizations to undermine other nations and spread their propaganda.

Yeah and it backfired on them. Trump's victory was first and foremost a reaction to heavy-handed pushing of neo-liberal agenda (sorry for sounding super-breitbarty there). Basically, the Soros', Clintons, etc. of this world need to be a little more delicate, a little less arrogant and a little less compromised. Macron is idealogically == Clintons, but he will win (against a stronger candidate) b/c he doesn't have dirty laundry and (this is a guess, as I don't speak French), French mass media hasn't yet transformed into some sort of strange orwellian-buzzfeed hybrid.

That's the ultimate myth, that somehow "liberal" agenda was pushed too arrogantly, too hard. No, it's exactly the opposite of that, it's the case of the cornered boar.

Millions of people decided they know better than facts. That's it.

- bring back jobs (won't happen, because automation and simply too high cost of living in USA)

- climate change is a Chinese hoax (coal ash is killing folks in the USA, and they have the largest healthcare-financing problem)

- illegal immigrants, Mexico wall (ineffective and immigrants are net payers, since they pay taxes, but don't receive any support)

- sex ed, planned parenthood, contraceptions (again, costs of teen pregnancies are hurting them the most)

bring back jobs (won't happen, because automation and simply too high cost of living in USA)

US/Mexico trade balance pre/post NAFTA? If you go by the numbers alone, it's pretty clear-cut. Unless you know better than the facts of course...

Trade balance alone is meaningless. The US is a much wealthier country/nation/state than Mexico, of course if barriers to trade are lowered people will import more from the cheaper side. This helps Mexico's developing economy.

Helping a developing economy is a laudable goal sure, the political question is whether it is enough to be worth inflicting costs on your own voters. Some of said voters will say yes of course, generally those will be the ones benefiting from cheaper products/labour, and not those who have been undercut.

>Millions of people decided they know better than facts. That's it.

I don't think people voted for Trump because they think he was spouting facts (when did facts ever factor in a US election ?).

I think they voted for him because they felt that between him and Hillary it was a bad choice either way, so why not go with the 'new kid on the block' this time around.

George Soros is a euphemistic stand-in for "the international conspiracy of rich Jews" -- a persistent scapegoat with a very sordid history.

is he? My understanding is that he actually funds organisations like the Open Society Foundation and Media Matters - just because he's Jewish doesn't mean he's a stand-in for old conspiracies, especially if he actually does fund progressive political organisations.

Having once been a recipient of an Open Society Foundation grand on the order of X00,000$, I have to say that both of you are right: His jewishness is definitely used to amplify opposition to him, by people opposing him primarily because he advocates for open democracies.

It's important to clearly state what is meant when people talk about Soros' "liberal" or "progressive" values: the work I have seen is almost exclusively concerned with the mechanisms of politics, not the content. It is motivated by his experience of seeing both fascism and communism devastating his native country and opposes both extremes. The work I was involved in organised debating competitions for students from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and everything in between and there's nothing "liberal" about it, unless you count allowing women to participate on equal footing as such.

How did you get one of those grants?

Your understanding is correct. It's a fact that he funds a large number of such organizations (and has for decades now). I can't imagine anyone disputing that at this point, it's extremely well known at all levels politically. I'm not aware that he even attempts to hide most of it. It'd be like pretending the Koch brothers don't do many of the equivalent things on the right.

He does fund those organizations. But when I read comments from Trump supporters about Soros, they're assigning him a superhuman level of control and manipulation that has nothing to do with his actual financial contributions. His name is used as a stand-in for a conspiracy.

Also it's worth noting that factual statements about Jews can be used in antisemite contexts. For example, "there are so many Jews in Hollywood..." is not incorrect, but it's easy to imagine how that phrase is typically used.

It's easy to imagine how "Jews run Hollywood" is used (well we don't have to imagine; we know, and examples are probably not hard to find).

OTOH, unless we're saying Jews in Hollywood, or George Soros, get a free pass just because they happen to be Jewish (assuming Soros even is; I suspect most people who criticise him don't know), then we need to be careful of silencing legitimate criticism by falsely labelling it anti-Semitic.

That's the point though: it's quite difficult to conceive "lots of Jews in Hollywood" as a criticism rather than a pretty anodyne fact unless one is making "Hollywood is liberal because Jewish conspiracies are using it as a tool to push their agenda upon an unsuspecting public" which seem rather more deeply rooted in anti-Semitism than reality

I think I'd rather have NGOs lobbying for laws to mitigate corruption and improve education, than NGOs telling people in Africa that using birth control is a sin and that they should kill gay people.

The point isn't what Soros actually does, it's that the right paints him as the figurehead of a secret Jewish world order.

Read what the leaders and far-right populist movements in Poland and Hungary say about Soros and you can't miss the 'old conspiracies'.

What's so sordid about Soros - at least from the perspective of the right?

I could understand the left loathing him more - due to his involvement in the financial sector.

I have a tendency to view him positively because of his support of the concept of the Open Society and his espousal of Popper's political project. I don't know a huge amount about him beyond that but this alone makes me lean towards regarding him as a force for good - even if the idea of billionaires spending money advancing political agendas is deeply troubling on the whole.

No. There are many people with Jewish background who oppose his agenda. And he does not hide being rich or pushing unwanted agendas in the countries where his NGOs operate.

There are many people with Jewish background who oppose his agenda.

That has nothing to do with how his name is used by online posters as an antisemitic shorthand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com