[flagged]
Otherwise it just comes across as a useless knee-jerk reaction to the name of Soros: “Hurr hurr reptilian Jews new world order something something globalists.”
Essentially, the gist of the complaint is that Soros is the world's largest social engineer. This is obviously very relevant in the context of Soros calling for tech firms to be tightly controlled so people only see "right" information, as he sees it - this would seem likely to be another part of his social engineering effort.
He has set up a fund with about 32 billion dollars in it, explicitly for the purpose of ensuring society follows his preferred path - one world government, open borders everywhere, EU replacing national governments, legal abortion everywhere, mass migration from Africa and so on.
To achieve this Soros must have tremendous influence on politics, which he does through his extensive lobbying, and his fund - being dedicated specifically to the global triumph of liberal politics - routinely makes huge donations to political parties, campaign groups, etc around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Political_involve...
Thus an article where he calls for important news feeds to be controlled by governments is concerning for two reasons:
1. It's not just a guy with an opinion. It is a public instruction to all politicians everywhere on what they must do to qualify for more of his money.
2. He is likely being disingenuous about his real reasons. He says "think of the children" but his foundation is not about child protection. It puts far more emphasis on migration policies than that.
1) You're making a few assumptions.
* Taking refugees is not the same as open borders and mass migration.
* Nation cooperation is not the same as world government.
2) I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is, but that's beside the point I guess.
3) You specifically acknowledge he's open about this, in multiple of your paragraphs, and I fail to see where in the flow chart he makes money from this. So it all boils down to him having amassed a huge fortune and now using this for causes he ostensibly believes in.
It's all fine if you strongly disagree with those politics, but to build on GP, it's interesting that Soros is blamed for everything from bussing in illegal voters to something something pedophile rings.
> 2. He is likely being disingenuous about his real reasons. He says "think of the children" but his foundation is not about child protection. It puts far more emphasis on migration policies than that.
Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? In your point just before you explicitly state that "it is a public instruction". Then why can't it be about child protection if that is his public instruction.
It's hilarious to me that the same people crying wolf about Soros have zero reservations about the news outlets, think tanks, politicians that get immense amounts of money from the Kochs and Mercers, where there is clear financial gain for doing so.
Your statement is true. But Soros and his foundation supports the latter in both cases, so it's also not relevant.
Here are some quotes to show this is true. Note that I am not Hungarian and don't particularly care about Soros myself. However the criticisms of what he's doing aren't conspiracy theories or the ravings of lunatics. It's quite well documented and open.
For instance, after a memo was leaked from his foundation, the OSF said this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743479/Left-wing-bi...
The OSF told MailOnline: 'We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity ... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard.
Note the foundation talks about migration in general, not refugees.
With respect to one world government, Soros has said:
“Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
Albeit, this quote is old, I do not know offhand if he's said similar things recently. I got this from a few minutes Googling, not deep personal knowledge. Suffice it to say that he's a big supporter of the EU and its vision of replacing national governments. Note that the EU is currently trying to force Hungary to take migrants (not refugees), against the Hungarian government's will. So that's one reason they don't like him there.
I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is
I have no problem with it. I used it as an example of the kinds of policies he funds. For instance, to try and change the politics of Ireland.
Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies?
Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. However, if you go to the website of the OSF or look at what things Soros has funded, they're all very much in the area of highly controversial or even unpopular policies that have nothing to do with children but which frequently crop up on social media. The only thing visible on the OSF web page above the fold is about migration. So, I'm not surprised people might look for ulterior motives.
In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros.
The sixth hit for your Soros quote is Breitbart (most prior being googles own hits, and most following being glenn beck and other right wing "pundits"), which is almost entirely funded by Rebekah Mercer, previously Robert Mercer
I'm not questioning it's accuracy, only the motive for posting it.
Also relevant for the dailymail link:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
>> Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies?
> Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research.
And yet you did.
> Here are some quotes to show this is true
> "... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard."
Emphasis mine. I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it, but I know what you linked and their motives, and that I could find a charitable interpretation of the quote.
To be clear, although it's also irrelevant, my motive in this thread has been to explain the long since flagged and dead comment about why George Soros specifically is not the best person to call for strict regulation of tech firms.
I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it
Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then?
The relevant part of the quote is the part you removed: "We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity". This quote demonstrates my point that Soros supports the latter, and so your point that it's not equivalent to something else doesn't matter.
> Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then?
My point was that they're a terrible source for finding out what context they used when framing their own article, given their obvious slant.
> The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which they can be found in search engines, and then make vague handwaves about "motives" - as if this has any impact at all.
Another commenter had already specifically dissected that quote, so it felt redundant. And looking at the sites flagging for a problem with that quote WAS extremely telling.
There already exist a variety of international organizations to tackle these in various ways, established by international treaties...
This does not by any means replace national government.
In case you weren't aware, the Mail is so prone pushing their agenda over the facts that Wikipedia consider citations from the Mail invalid, given their "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.
My question is: do you really believe a $32B fund is nearly enough to enact the kind of change and influence that you’re attributing to Soros? It’s certainly a large personal fortune, but it doesn’t move the needle very much when you’re assuming that he’s actually buying out governments of dozens of countries.
A fund of that size would probably spend 1-2 billion yearly. (He’s not going to blow the entire 32 billion wad in one shot — otherwise, how does he bribe the politicians next year?)
So what does one get with a billion? Unfortunately most of the money spent by the foundations is publicly accounted for, in various boring things like grants to academic sociologists... So let’s assume that 20% of the money is used to buy influence. 200 million is not a lot to spend globally.
In comparison, the Hungarian government spent an estimated 20 million on their anti-Soros billboard campaign last year. They were basically plastering bus stops with large black&white posters of Soros, a wealthy old New York Jew. You may think that was a valuable public service announcement, but maybe you can also understand why people felt that spending public money on such posters was reminiscent of 1930s Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
its founding in 1993, OSF has reported expenditures of over $11 billion
The Open Society Foundations reported annual expenditures of $827 million in 2014.[17] Its $873 million budget in 2013, ranked as the second largest private philanthropy budget in the United States, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation budget of $3.9 billion
In 2017, Soros transferred $18 billion to the Foundation
It's fair to say that they're unlikely to be budget limited. Whether or not that's enough for Soros to achieve his goals is hard to say. I tend to think money has less impact in politics than many like to imagine. There are quite a few examples of lesser funded politicians beating much better funded politicians in elections e.g. Trump v Clinton.
But it doesn't have no impact either, that's for sure.
As for funding academic sociologists, well that's essentially the same as paying for lobbying. I don't think sociology is really a robust area of science: I've seen too many nonsensical papers and research results to believe it's much more than the researchers own opinions projected back at them. So by funding researchers who share Soros' world views, he gets a steady supply of "science" that can be used to sway policymakers.
maybe you can also understand why people felt that spending public money on such posters was reminiscent of 1930s Europe.
Oh look, you just implied people you disagree with might be Nazis. What a surprising and unexpected tactic that I never see these days at all.
The Hungarian government's beef with Soros is that he's rich, he supports the EU's efforts to take away Hungary's voting rights (i.e. making it formally a vassal state of the EU with no power in it at all), he funds political causes that the elected government opposes and so on. It has nothing to do with him being a Jew. This sort of debating tactic is crying wolf and I find myself already ignoring most accusations that someone or some group are "Nazis" because it's almost never true.
You greatly overestimate the influence of academics in present-day politics.
> The Hungarian government's beef with Soros is that he's rich, he supports the EU's efforts to take away Hungary's voting rights (i.e. making it formally a vassal state of the EU with no power in it at all), he funds political causes that the elected government opposes and so on. It has nothing to do with him being a Jew.
Come on. If he were a white guy from Kansas named Smith, the Hungarian government would just ignore him. He makes a highly convenient lighting rod for various nationalist angsts in Central Europe by filling the outlines of a centuries old stereotype.
The talk of Hungary becoming a vassal state is nonsense. When Hungary joined the EU, its government accepted a binding treaty to uphold certain values. The current government is free to walk away -- that same treaty contains a termination article which Britain is currently exercising. Of course Hungary doesn't actually want to leave the EU because they're major net winners both in terms of direct EU funding and in having access to the internal market.
Now that is a ridiculous claim with no basis in reality.
If Kansas billionaire Smith spent huge sums trying to remove Hungary's national sovereignty and force policies down their throat that the population doesn't want, they'd dislike him almost as much.
The fact that Soros is originally Hungarian just adds insult to injury.
Do you have a source for that claim? I am member of the EU as well and wonder that I never heard that claim before. It sounds exaggerated to be blunt.
He is smart, rich, old, and has an outspoken agenda. I have an opinion of him and his Open Society Foundation, but I'd rather keep that to myself.
Did you know that his OSF sponsored the battle against software patents in the EU?
What is the name of this fund?
http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-soro...
I don't like Facebook, never had an account and have mixed feelings concerning Soros. He invested a lot of money in Eastern Europe that ultimately created a civil society (good) but also sparked leftist sentiment (no so good). I feel that over regulation and too powerful governments are ultimately bad for society. This isn't an open society, it's quite the opposite. The civil society and the ONG's are too fragmented and too dependent on outside financing to create the checks and balances required to keep governments and politicians from abusing power.