So who really is George Soros and should I care or not worry?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Because these "skeptic" community and Right Leaning figures or at least some of them, tend to point to this guy as their boogeyman. That he's the reason why stuff like terrorism and immigration and overall things that these people don't like. Like apperently he's responsible for movements like Antifa and Black Lives Matter for being extremely radical.

But who is he really, what are his accomplishments or infamous deeds? Is he truly guilty of any wrong doing that I should concern myself with?

How does this person's ideas and activities affect me personally?

And please don't take this the wrong way, whenever I ask a political question I get some vaguely snippy responses. I have made this thread as straight as I can and as neutral and dispassionate as I can.

He is the liberal equivalent to the Koch Brothers. He spends massive amounts of money to pursue left wing and progressive programs and candidates.

A liberal billionaire who is accused of being behind several liberal and left-wing movements in Europe and parts of the Americas, specifically color revolutions.

As for what his believed goals are, it varies.

CM156:
A liberal billionaire who is accused of being behind several liberal and left-wing movements in Europe and parts of the Americas, specifically color revolutions.

As for what his believed goals are, it varies.

I was gonna say he's the reason ANTIFA became the extreme radical group it became. But why I have no idea.

Samtemdo8:
snip

He's an extremely wealthy businessman and former hedge fund manager who has donated the majority of his wealth to fund philanthropic organisations and to lobby for political causes he supports, which are generally liberal, pro-democratic and progressive.

To be blunt, the idea that he's a "radical" or even a leftist is somewhat absurd. He managed a hedge fund, he has made billions from market speculation and much of his investment has involved the decommunization of Eastern Europe (he himself was born in Hungary). His position is fairly consistent and what we in western Europe would describe as "centrist" or "liberal". He likes democracy, he likes free markets but doesn't think free markets can solve every social problem, he doesn't like war, he likes human and civil rights.

He isn't responsible for BLM, much less terrorism, and has not given money to either. However, the philanthropic organisation he founded has given grants to organizations which lobby for black civil rights, some of which have supported (as in, voiced support for, not materially funded) protests against police brutality.

Now, let's move on to the one uncomfortable area which is kind of necessary to explain why the right is so upset..

George Soros is of Jewish background.

A central pillar of a lot of neo-Nazi and white nationalist views of the world (ironically, one they share with a lot of Islamist extremists) is that there is a global conspiracy of Jews which is orchestrating the demise of "Western civilization" deliberately. This is a convenient view because it provides someone to blame for all the perceived social ills of "Western civilization" itself. George Soros is a natural target for these people, because he is an extremely wealthy and powerful person who behaves in ways we do not expect wealthy and powerful people to behave. Thus, it's easy to believe that there must be some alterior motive or secret conspiracy.

But I think a key thing to understanding Soros' position is to recognize that unlike most wealthy and influential people, he has been poor, he has been discriminated against, he has emigrated from an oppressive and totalitarian society. I don't want to paint him as a good person, some of his financial dealings have been highly suspect for example, but I don't think it's a huge mystery as to why he sympathizes with discriminated minorities, and I don't think it has anything to do with a secret plot to destroy Western civilization.

Sadly, the "skeptic" community (an ironic name, if there ever was one) is dancing to a very white nationalist tune these days.

He's Jewish, so the far right hate him.

Samtemdo8:
But who is he really, what are his accomplishments or infamous deeds? Is he truly guilty of any wrong doing that I should concern myself with?

He's just the left-wing version of the Koch brothers; an extremely wealthy businessman who donates a lot of money to various political groups.

He has some particular infamy in the UK for his role in the Black Wednesday financial crisis, which he exploited to the tune of about a billion dollars. He serves as an effective boogeyman for the alt-right because of his numerous and myriad financial connections, which helps fuel conspiracy theories that exaggerate how much control he has over the political groups he donates to. And, naturally, because he's Jewish.

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
A liberal billionaire who is accused of being behind several liberal and left-wing movements in Europe and parts of the Americas, specifically color revolutions.

As for what his believed goals are, it varies.

I was gonna say he's the reason ANTIFA became the extreme radical group it became. But why I have no idea.

You may as well say that he's behind chemtrails that turn the frogs gay, you'll be about as correct.

bastardofmelbourne:

Samtemdo8:
But who is he really, what are his accomplishments or infamous deeds? Is he truly guilty of any wrong doing that I should concern myself with?

He's just the left-wing version of the Koch brothers; an extremely wealthy businessman who donates a lot of money to various political groups.

Liberal or centrist, not left.

It's complicated. Simply put he's a rich banker who supports a lot of causes and groups that trigger rightists. I have my doubts that he does it for purely selfless reasons, especially seeing how he never shied away from financially exploiting poorer countries but if his support for civil rights is part of a sinister agenda I have yet to see a convincing argument for what that agenda actually is.

Now for the elephant in the room. Soros is jewish which, in the eyes of your average rightists, implicates him in a nebulous conspiracy that probably also involves the Rothchild dynasty on some level. Now we're approaching a pretty high level of bullshit but I think it's clear what the narrative here is. If you're a rightist and you believe that jews support an evil agenda called "cultural marxism" that involves, as I understand, deconstructing social hierarchy and making people treat each other as equals, those bastards, George Soro's makes for a pretty good boogeyman, being rich, jewish and supporting progressive causes.

Now, he's by no means a saint. He made a lot of money through less than wholesome means. And he did sell out other jews to the Nazis when he was a young man, something he seems to have very little regrets about. Chances are he's no less of an opportunist than most rich people are. But it's extremely unlikely that he's the leader of a satanic conspiracy to enslave humanity.

Honestly, I have that vague suspicion that rightists mostly treat him as their nemesis because he looks a bit like Emperor Palpatine.

Jeez, why does every argument boil down to accusations of racism round here?

I was completely unaware that Soros was Jewish. What I was aware of is that he is an outside influence pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into campaigns to overturn a democratic decision by the local population. Which, when you take away the specifics, is exactly what Russia has been accused of and is currently being vilified for.

Rich people investing heavily in the political process is something that should be distrusted, whatever their alignment.

Catnip1024:
Jeez, why does every argument boil down to accusations of racism round here?

Blame the people who put (((echo))) tags around the people they think are responsible for the downfall of the West.

They aren't even subtle about it.

He's your new supreme overlord obviously.

And he's paying all of us leftists to protest and march against God Emperor Trump.... but we are also simultaneously poor and jobless.... somehow.

As other people have said he is a by no means perfect billionaire who earned some money through suspect ways but has also funded left wing charities and organizations and since so many people on the right carry the 'fuck you got mine' approach they assume there must be something sinister about a rich man giving money to help people (or to help fund other organizations that help people).

He's also Jewish, that part really is the most important red flag. The far right very much hate him primarily for that reason but they know they have to hide that part (Charlottesville really was their 'coming out party') so they just talk about 'Soros' in broad terms and hope that the right people will catch the dog whistle on their own. So yes very often when the right are talking about Soros it is just antisemetic propaganda.

And as a personal note to the OP: I would seriously advise you to look for information channels other than the 'Youtube Skeptic community' to learn more about this stuff and broadly the wider world. First of all a lot of these 'skeptics' are really just loud guys with opinions who know exactly as much about the complexities and issues surrounding systemic racism and sexism in Western Society as any random average drunk in a pub on a Friday night. Like they aren't by and large academics, they can only really offer their own limited perspective.

The main reason though is that these 'skeptics'..... aren't. Now I don't subscribe to the idea that they are all secretly holding fascist beliefs and just pretending not to, though certainly some do, rather I think that the general hostility this community has to anything 'SJW' created a very easily exploitable niche where fascists could slip their propaganda under the radar disguised as just another 'brilliant take down of stupid SJW' video or even that classic 'FEMINISM DESTROYED!!!' (We know for a fact they do this, Milo Yian Nipples himself was fairly recently caught out associating with American Nazi groups and there's evidence of Breitbart deliberately smuggling white nationalism into the mainstream through articles ostensiby just 'debunking liberal bullshit') Again keeping in mind that many of these people DO NOT UNDERSTAND these issues properly but are instead governed on the certainty that they are right and the natural impulse to dismiss anything perceived as 'Social Justice Warrior', it's relatively easy for them to accidentally absorb Nazi dogwhistles and not even realize they are doing it and then for their subscribers it's just a few clicks down the suggested videos rabbit hole and suddenly you're getting your views straight from actual Neo Nazi's.
Hell the Alt Right itself in its infancy just seemed to be based on reacting negatively to whatever 'SJW's' had issue with and then supporting it just to spite them and often arguing in very bad faith, deliberately trying to frame the 'SJW's' as some kind of nefarious enemy that needed to be defeated.

"You think the Damsel in distress is an overused trope? Well fuck I guess that means you hate love and relationships and think men shouldn't care about their girlfriend's safety!"

- literally an argument Thunderf00t used.

Like seriously if you actually watch Anita Sarkeesian's videos you'll find very basic, kind of bland, informative discussions and breakdowns on women's roles and representations in video game stories and design. Free of all preconceived biases you wouldn't think much of anything about Antia Sarkeesian beyond just 'she's a feminist critic'. But if you watch nothing but aforementioned Thunderf00t or Amazing Athiest 'takedowns' or 'destructions' of Anita Sarkeesian where she's characterized as a sociopath (again Thunderf00t literally called her that for criticising tropes in constructed fiction). They go on the attack, never actually debate the merit of her points in a fair way and certainly never consider if her points have validity. It's not about debate, it's about being able to dismiss her arguments and ultimately her as a person by any means necessary. They have one mode. Attack. Attack. Attack. And they are not above personal jibes designed to ridicule their opponant to make them seem less 'valid' (yet to see a single 'skeptic' response video of Contrapoints post transition that doesn't devote some time to mocking the fact that she's trans) because it's all about shoving you in a box so they can ignore you completely. And let's not kid ourselves they are not above deliberately cherrypicking videos and taking quotes out of context and ommitting certain elements from the video that disprove their 'takedown' because they are content in the knowledge that their subscribers will never actually watch the original video, just their warped interpretation of it because it feeds the need to dismiss these people and ideas off hand. What the kids these days call 'lying'.

And that's just one example but it can be applied broadly to all forms of left wing thought and major political issues. Systemic racism is a hard topic to explain but if you can just say 'look at these violent black criminals aren't these SJW's stupid for pretending it's not about race?" Is just an easier sell and will sadly resonate with your audience better.

And a true 'Skeptic' would be like, 'skeptical' of stuff like that. They would also want to look into why for instance, leftists got so worked up over the 'it's okay to be white' campaign instead of just take the Alt Right interpretation of the scene at face value. And upon finding out the reason was because the campaign was sourced from actual white nationalists coordinating specifically to gaslight and confuse people they might then look at it another way but instead they turn right back around and start saying 'yeah but there's nothing wrong with the words themselves you stupid SJW's'

Like if they were truly skeptical surely they would be skeptical at where their sources come from, instead of inviting them on to their channels to discuss ideas and just essentially give them megaphones. But that's the point, they aren't 'skeptical', or if they are it is exclusively being skeptical of the left while being all too willing to make excuses for the Alt Right. Because the Alt Right provides them sources that allow them to make fun of 'SJW's' and remember the philosophy governing this whole enterprise is not 'let's look at the facts and see what's going on' but instead 'let's listen to everything Heir Fritz has to say about the preservation of a white homeland and find a single focal point about the opposition to make fun of SJW's' because again that's why they are really here.
'If liberals like something it must be bad and if Liberals hate something it must be good and never question that' is about as far as their 'skepticism' goes. No matter what that 'something' is.

(Also it just makes good monetary sense, like seriously if I ever needed a fall back career I'd become one of those guys. Instant fanbase, easy work and I get a lot of money and at least I'm on the side of the ones doing the doxxing and less likely to get doxxed myself. I need to point this out, being lefty online, especially as 'edge' culture has gotten to where it is now IS NOT FUN OR EASY so anyone trying to tell you leftists are just doing it for easy money are full of some pretty impressively stinky shit)

It's not designed to be reasonable, thought provoking or honest. It's just designed to seal people in an echo chamber, draw battle lines between 'us' and 'them' and foster anger, resentment and anti intellectualism. By itself this shit would just be annoying, except for all the Doxxing and Swatting. But it also leaves a void and a lot of isolated rage of directionless young people which sadly is what particularly predatory groups will take full advantage of. I saw this start in Gamergate and nothing has changed except now it applies to all politics in the world.

Again lot of the Alt Right is a cross section of so called 'skepticism', 'englightened centrism' and edgy reactionary bullshit in response to perceived threats by 'SJW's' and that really was the perfect breeding ground for actual fascist ideology to spawn from, hence why I'm not surprised that the youtube skeptic lot are now moving on from Sarkeesian and onto Soros. Why now instead of SJW's trying to ruin video games it's now that there is a (((Conspiracy))) to put women in the lead roles in Star Wars movies and (((Executives))). Same words but the language has changed somewhat because knowingly or not these guys are helping spread a message under the radar.

While my natural impulse is to believe that most of these guys (and gals) aren't actually bad people, I'm sure some of them I would get along with fine in real life if I actually got to meet them and merely being a centrist, ancap or libertarian (*pukes*) doesn't necessarily mean you'll turn into a fascist it is worth noting that a lot of these so call center leaning people are really quick to fire up the alarms when a leftist criticizes a video game but while just suddenly start calling for calm when they hear about a neo Nazi killing people, and you should be skeptical of that fact. You should notice when they care about 'free speech' and when they just shrug and say 'he/she was looney lefty anyway we don't need to listen to them' and you REALLY need to look at where their sources are coming from and not just take them at face value and I really do hope the same for these guys too and it is worth noting part of the reason leftists get this reputation of being hostile to these guys is because they keep unwittingly sharing phoney statistics and so called 'hilarious memes' that are loaded with fascist dog whistles (guys you know damn well what doing the 'Okay' sign with your fingers in photos means in a post 2017 world, stop pretending) so leftists who recognize the dog whistles react with hostility because, well, we're used to seeing them and are genuinely scared of what could happen if these kinds of ideas and notions (evil jews, women shouldn't vote, brown people are dangerous, gays need to be bullied back into the closet etc) are allowed to grow and become part of 'acceptable discourse'.

But while I truly believe a lot of these guys are just being manipulated by fascists who know how to stroke their fragile ego while carefully pointing at targets and saying 'they are a threat to you, they fear how smart you are' (Bannon was doing this with Trump) there are some who very knowingly spread this stuff around. Sargon of Akkad was recently outed as a white nationalist sympathiser who decided that ultimately if the fascists succeeded it would be a better outcome for him and his family then a society run by liberals and that is what informed his opinions on the issue, what benefitted HIM. Their beliefs often align with very awful hateful ideologies and they happily nod along and become celebrity Alt Right spokesmen because of the aforementioned easy money, instant fanbase and easy ride. So I'm not surprised that they are talking about Soros, of course they are. Give it time and they will start talking about 'the Jewish Question' (or an equivalent) much more prominently and at that point the fascists will truly have won.

I mention all of this to you, OP, because I've seen you post a lot and you have posted as sincere examples of stuff that made me cringe at best and at worst say 'holy shit how can anyone actually view this as anything other than garbage (The Naked Ape video you posted on the Charlottesville thread comes to mind) but the difference is that unlike so many of the usual suspects on this site you DO actually listen to people's criticism and seem capable of being reasonable, fair and willing to argue in good faith unlike many of the usual suspects on this site who just follow the playbook of 'mean spirited insults, slyly changing the subject of conversation, deliberately trying to piss people off, dismissing all sources off hand, turning everything into an accusation or personal insult and then running away the second it gets too heavy (you know who you are). You seem like someone who can be reached so hence I wanted to lay out, in detail, my issue with so called skeptics. Really though I could have just shown you this:

Something to keep in mind, this is a parody of so called youtube skeptics. But I had to tell you that because it hits nearly every mark.

Also while I'm here, here's a detailed breakdown of how these centrists or 'classical liberals can become fascists in the first place:

Also here's a breakdown of how these guys use tough posturing to 'appear' tough:

And here's some more for you that I really do hope you find the time to watch, because it is healthy to explore ideas not just through a single filtered lens:

So yeah the George Soros thing is a complicated question but if you want to know why a lot of so called youtube skeptics hate him it's easy, they are regurgitating Nazi ideology.

I do not buy for one second that 'PC culture' helped give rise to neo fascists but an unhealthy diet of biased videos telling you that PC culture is going to destroy the world sure could.

Samtemdo8:
I was gonna say he's the reason ANTIFA became the extreme radical group it became. But why I have no idea.

He's got jack shit to do with Antifa. Or the Occupy protests, for that matter.

Look, people like to tie George Soros to far-left activist groups because it fits a useful conspiracy framework. But those far-left activist groups? They don't like George Soros. He's not left-wing enough for them. He's a capitalist billionaire one-percenter.

I mean, one of the things Soros is most noteworthy for is donating to liberal political groups in former Soviet countries. The guy is not a socialist. Putin fucking hates him, and I don't doubt that a lot of the Soros conspiracy theories that swamped the web the past few years are ultimately sourced from Russian trolls.

Seanchaidh:
Liberal or centrist, not left.

Yeah, I was wondering when you would pop in and demonstrate that point for me.

It's an important point. The alt-right thinks that Soros - and Hillary Clinton, for that matter - are part of some vast left-wing conspiracy to eradicate white European culture and turn everyone into decadent hippies a la The Camp of the Saints, smothering the greatness of America/Europe/Britain with political correctness and affirmative action and letting the gays get married.

But the thing is that George Soros isn't that far left. He certainly has very little in common with guys like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. He's hardly an extremist at all, he's tame as balls.

Catnip1024:
Jeez, why does every argument boil down to accusations of racism round here?

Look, the anti-semitism isn't the whole of the thing, but it's an important part of the thing.

George Soros is useful as a boogeyman for alt-right conspiracy theorists because he fits the old "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" mould; he's a wealthy, politically active Jewish person. The alt-right, I hate to tell you, has a substantial number of legitimate fucking Nazis in their ranks, and those guys get involved in crafting the alt-right's "orthodoxy," so to speak - the theories and infographics and and memes that spread through their forums and social media pages and Youtube blogs and eventually into Breitbart and Fox News.

So they use Soros, because he fits a hole in their worldview - that of the adversary who is responsible for the ills of America and Britain, the adversary who explains all of their problems, the Illuminati-like conspiracy that is secretly ruining the world and which has to be exposed and destroyed by voting for Donald Trump. All extremists on all sides of the spectrum need an enemy like that in order to justify their extremist rhetoric.

Because the alternative is to acknowledge that the world's problems are big, complex things that aren't deliberately engineered into existence by malevolent actors, and which can only be fixed by tortuously slow and difficult work over decades of determined political and social reform. And that's a hard swallow for a lot of people - tell them that their problems are caused by a billionaire Hungarian Jew, that's easy, that explains it for them. But tell them that their problems were the product of decades of political dysfunction with no one party to blame, and that doesn't help them at all.

Catnip1024:
Which, when you take away the specifics, is exactly what Russia has been accused of and is currently being vilified for.

George Soros doesn't commit cyber-crimes and assassinate people, nor does he annex chunks of his neighbours with black-labelled "paramilitary" forces.

He donates money. That's it. The Koch brothers do that too. But neither the Koch brothers or George Soros perform anything on the level that Russia has been doing the past ten or fifteen years.

@Vrex360 answering only certain things your post:

I do believe Anita Sarkessian is proven to be a hack from these "skeptics" the Hitman Absolution example comes to mind aswell as her saying she doesn't play video games and never cared for them.

But I do accept counter arguments when they are clearly incontrovertible, I mean I have been shown evidence that law-enforcement/police in the United States have been infiltrated by White-Supremecists movements and there are multiple FBI articles supporting it. If it wasn't for that, I would have written it off as a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Naked Ape I know that man is proven to be a way too loud asshole, like some of these guys are way too passionate and just doesn't lower their voice, its like thier acting like a bunch of characters, the reason why I linked his video is for one arguement he made about a killing a certain black man by police officiers and that acussations of racism in law enforcement abounds yet most of the chain of command in law enforcement handling the situation were black.

And Kraut and Tea has shown his true colors as a biggoted racist to French people and Arabs and Brown people. He even admits he has friends who are Nazis.

And Black Pigeon Speaks made me aware of George Soros in the first place and I called bullshit on his video because there is absolutely no way all these ills and grievences are caused by one man.

But than Stefan Molyneux, Sargon of Akkad, and Naked Ape referred to him aswell.

Thank you for your reply, I hope not to come across as hostile (But I truly hate some of the youtubers you've referenced so no problem) but above all I hope we can remain civil in our discussion of the issues at hand.

Samtemdo8:
@Vrex360 answering only certain things your post:

I do believe Anita Sarkessian is proven to be a hack from these "skeptics" the Hitman Absolution example comes to mind aswell as her saying she doesn't play video games and never cared for them.

Okay well in the interest of showing off alternative viewpoints I would like to present you a video detailing an in depth look at the first part of that in regards to the Hitman absolution :

Also Anita Sarkeesian while yes Sarkeesian did technically say those words that came from a lecture years prior to her starting her kickstarter and later that same year she attended a Canadian video game conference and that was the reason why she shifted her focus back to video games, and she has come out with pictures of herself as kid playing video games and says that as a kid she did like games but grew out of them and a large part of why that was was the sexist tropes in question leading her to believe it just wasn't for 'her' which ultimately is what lead her to make the series in the first place, detailed in this second video:

Basically when people just reference that thirty second clip from 2010 with absolutely zero of the surrounding context and just scream "FEMINISM DERTOYED!!!' they are willingly disregarding crucial bits of information is favour of a narrative. Bias is a thing that a so called 'skeptic' should be quicker to notice and be critical of.

But I do accept counter arguments when they are clearly incontrovertible, I mean I have been shown evidence that law-enforcement/police in the United States have been infiltrated by White-Supremecists movements and there are multiple FBI articles supporting it. If it wasn't for that, I would have written it off as a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Glad to hear that and holy fuck it's scary isn't it?

Naked Ape I know that man is proven to be a way too loud asshole, like some of these guys are way too passionate and just doesn't lower their voice, its like thier acting like a bunch of characters,

Even if they are just 'playing a character' when they make a video about how proud they are to be racist because of an MTV video and end with actual far right propaganda videos they are still setting the tone of discourse to say that acting like a racist is an acceptable way to behave which frankly I still think is a problem.
Being a racist 'ironically' is still being a racist'.

the reason why I linked his video is for one arguement he made about a killing a certain black man by police officiers and that acussations of racism in law enforcement abounds yet most of the chain of command in law enforcement handling the situation were black.

Think we might be talking about a different video.

And Kraut and Tea has shown his true colors as a biggoted racist to French people and Arabs and Brown people. He even admits he has friends who are Nazis.

Yeah doesn't surprise me.

And Black Pigeon Speaks made me aware of George Soros in the first place and I called bullshit on his video because there is absolutely no way all these ills and grievences are caused by one man.

You should just be able to call Black Pidgeon 'Women who are allowed to choose who they sleep with are responsible for destroying civilizations' Speaks bullshit just after listening to the first five minutes of any random video of his. I mean I'll give him this at least he's overt in his fascist views and blatant hatred of women, he doesn't try to sugar coat it or anything.

But than Stefan Molyneux, Sargon of Akkad, and Naked Ape referred to him aswell.

Which again should say quite a lot.

Samtemdo8:
Because these "skeptic" community

Uh, the "skeptic" community? So just to be clear, we are talking less about the "your perpetual motion machine is bunk" kind of skeptics and more the "how many joos really died in......" type?

@Vrek360 regarding the White Supremicst inflitrating Law-Enforcement and a certain Naked Ape video.

Would you also accept the opposite story I would tell you? That the US Army/Military is being inflitrated by Black men who are members of gangs like Bloods and Crips so that they may take advantage of military training and weapons to bolster their gang's power and influance, I like your response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

And regarding Naked Ape, I can't find it but the shooting of the black man involved like 5 police officers, 2-3 of them being black, the police chief was black, the mayor of the city was black, the district attorny? was black, a good number of Senetors in the House is black, and the president of the USA at the time was Obama thus was black.

And Naked Ape says where is the racism in this chain of command? If anyone understands that certain event what was the city and victim in question? Because a Black Lives Matter riot happened after the shooting.

altnameJag:
Blame the people who put (((echo))) tags around the people they think are responsible for the downfall of the West.

They aren't even subtle about it.

Huh? What's an echo tag?

bastardofmelbourne:
Look, the anti-semitism isn't the whole of the thing, but it's an important part of the thing.

George Soros is useful as a boogeyman for alt-right conspiracy theorists because he fits the old "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" mould; he's a wealthy, politically active Jewish person. The alt-right, I hate to tell you, has a substantial number of legitimate fucking Nazis in their ranks, and those guys get involved in crafting the alt-right's "orthodoxy," so to speak - the theories and infographics and and memes that spread through their forums and social media pages and Youtube blogs and eventually into Breitbart and Fox News.

So they use Soros, because he fits a hole in their worldview - that of the adversary who is responsible for the ills of America and Britain, the adversary who explains all of their problems, the Illuminati-like conspiracy that is secretly ruining the world and which has to be exposed and destroyed by voting for Donald Trump. All extremists on all sides of the spectrum need an enemy like that in order to justify their extremist rhetoric.

Because the alternative is to acknowledge that the world's problems are big, complex things that aren't deliberately engineered into existence by malevolent actors, and which can only be fixed by tortuously slow and difficult work over decades of determined political and social reform. And that's a hard swallow for a lot of people - tell them that their problems are caused by a billionaire Hungarian Jew, that's easy, that explains it for them. But tell them that their problems were the product of decades of political dysfunction with no one party to blame, and that doesn't help them at all.

Now, I haven't exactly been avidly following news regarding Soros, but this thread is the first time I've heard the fact that he is Jewish mentioned. I'm not denying there may be nutters out there to who that is a major issue, but I think trying to wave it away as the main reason people dislike him is overlooking a lot.

The thing is, take out the Jewish aspect, and what you have is a rich man distorting democracy. Which is something people should distrust, be it Soros or Murdoch or Zuckerburg. People gain an amount of power far in excess of the common man and attempt to shape the world to their image.

George Soros doesn't commit cyber-crimes and assassinate people, nor does he annex chunks of his neighbours with black-labelled "paramilitary" forces.

He donates money. That's it. The Koch brothers do that too. But neither the Koch brothers or George Soros perform anything on the level that Russia has been doing the past ten or fifteen years.

I was referring to the recent elections, rather than Russian policy as a whole. Otherwise you may as well add that he doesn't have a doping regime to help himself do better at the Olympics.

Sure, he's not as bad, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't like people, particularly outsiders, distorting the democratic process through disproportionate use of power.

Samtemdo8:
@Vrek360 regarding the White Supremicst inflitrating Law-Enforcement and a certain Naked Ape video.

Would you also accept the opposite story I would tell you? That the US Army/Military is being inflitrated by Black men who are members of gangs like Bloods and Crips so that they may take advantage of military training and weapons to bolster their gang's power and influance, I like your response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

Doesn't really surprise me, lots of people do that. Supposedly plenty of Neo Nazis have military training to some degree or another. While the world and America specifically likes to glorify the idea of soldiers as heroes it is worth noting there are violent people who sign on to the job because they like violence, there have been some truly awful instances in American military history (google the Haditha Massacre and hopefully be pissed off at the slap on the wrist those guys got in lew of actual punishment) so the idea that this could happen doesn't shock me.

The difference between white supremacy and inner city gangs though is that one is a political ideology and the other is a systemic chain of violence. While there were groups like the black panthers back in the day that wanted to be revolutionaries that overthrew the government the Crips and Bloods of today don't have that level of aspiration and ultimately they just fight each other in an endless cycle.
White nationalists on the other hand? They do have specific ideologies and beliefs and they don't just want to continue a cycle of violence (though to be clear they fucking love doing that) they also want their belief structure to make it into public discourse, their people in positions of political power (which they are in the process of doing http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/white-supremacists-running-for-office-2018_us_5a7da926e4b0c6726e1285c1) and ultimately to have the level of power and authority that they could actually see some version of their vision come to fruition (an all white ethnostate in which all other ethnicity are forcefully removed). Hence knowing that they have infiltrated the police is scary because that gives them a lot of authority, who's to say they won't casually turn a blind eye to calls reporting a growing militia of Neo Nazis terrorizing a small town somewhere? Or standing by and letting Neo Nazi's menace counter protestors? Or even working WITH Neo Nazi's to help track down and arrest anti racist protestors: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest

Because you know, that's where American society is right now.

Your example is bad but I look at it more as an example of a scathing indictment on the flaws inherent to the American military system and the larger flaws that allow the Crips and Bloods to keep the violence going on in an endless cycle. My one is a little bit more insidious.

And regarding Naked Ape, I can't find it but the shooting of the black man involved like 5 police officers, 2 of them being black, the police chief was black, the mayor of the city was black, the district attorny? was black, a good number of Senetors in the House is black, and the president of the USA at the time was Obama thus was black. And Naked Ape says where is the racism in this chain of command? If anyone understands that certain what was the city and victim in question?

[/quote]

This is something really important to understand about 'systemic racism', it isn't JUST about the behavior of individuals, it is also about how society is structured that can lead to issues that disproportionately effect black people over white people. Merely having a black president doesn't make racism go away nor does it change the systems in place that allowed that racism to become prevalant in the first place.

I'll give you a basic cross dissection of how systemic racism works using a case study from the Baltimore incident and afterwards you can tell me if you think 'but there's a black president' is in any way relevant:

Again this issue is huge and complex and sadly it doesn't lend itself to the smug confrontational and angry quippy style of debate that dumbshits people like Naked Ape specialize in. It can take hours to properly explain systemic racism but minutes to misrepresent it and mock the person trying to explain it.

Samtemdo8:
Would you also accept the opposite story I would tell you? That the US Army/Military is being inflitrated by Black men who are members of gangs like Bloods and Crips so that they may take advantage of military training and weapons to bolster their gang's power and influance, I like your response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

Your article states that all major gangs have infiltrated the US military. Why single out black gang members?

Certainly, there are black gang members in the US military, but that doesn't make the "the opposite story" to white supremacists in the US military unless they are comparable in some way. Number of members, violent crimes committed, influential positions held or something. To my knowledge, they are nowhere close.

That's not to say that gangs in the US military isn't a serious issue that needs addressing, just that you can't really equate the specifically black gangs there with white supremacy.

(As as aside, as well as gangs sending people the join the military, there are gangs that have formed within the US military to begin with. It's long past time to do something about them. The USMC tried banning tattoos, IIRC.)

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
Would you also accept the opposite story I would tell you? That the US Army/Military is being inflitrated by Black men who are members of gangs like Bloods and Crips so that they may take advantage of military training and weapons to bolster their gang's power and influance, I like your response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

Your article states that all major gangs have infiltrated the US military. Why single out black gang members?

Because the article has the picture of a Black Man showing a Gang Sign.

And that its been awhile since I read the whole article that I forgot some of the details. And sometimes I still think white supremecists and black gangs are the samething in terms of they are all criminals in the end.

But I do get what you mean, I am not surprised the groups like the Irish and Italian Mafia or Bikers and White Supremecists joined the military to further their goals aswell. Criminals should not be in any of these insititutions.

The scary thing is that if the movie The Departed is anything to go by, these criminal orginizations would foster individuals that have absolutely clean records of no criminality and would use them as moles within these insititutions for various reasons be it espionage or training to bolster the criminal organizations.

Catnip1024:
I was completely unaware that Soros was Jewish.

Lots of the right wing, however, are aware... and don't they have some interesting things to say / imply about it?

Catnip1024:
The thing is, take out the Jewish aspect, and what you have is a rich man distorting democracy. Which is something people should distrust, be it Soros or Murdoch or Zuckerburg. People gain an amount of power far in excess of the common man and attempt to shape the world to their image.

I'm relatively unbothered about rich people throwing their money and influence around... as long as there is transparency.

What bothers me are things like purchasing cosy chats with senior politicians outside the public eye, huge and undisclosed political donations, hiding behind think tanks as fronts for their agenda, and so on.

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:
Blame the people who put (((echo))) tags around the people they think are responsible for the downfall of the West.

They aren't even subtle about it.

Huh? What's an echo tag?

It means whatever's in the tags is Jewish.

Catnip1024:

Now, I haven't exactly been avidly following news regarding Soros, but this thread is the first time I've heard the fact that he is Jewish mentioned. I'm not denying there may be nutters out there to who that is a major issue, but I think trying to wave it away as the main reason people dislike him is overlooking a lot.

It's literally the reason he's apparently the shadow puppeteer involved in paying for every left-wing protest or act that has ever existed. (and quite a few that haven't). Like, lefties think the Koch brothers are shit, but they don't think they fund paramilitary protest groups responsible for every right wing demonstration that ever happened.

It should be noted that Soros has some powerful enemies. Most notably Hungarian far right prime minister Victor Orban who has made him a prime target for propaganda campaigns. If you want to know why George Soros is so hated in certain circles you should look into some of the drivel being spewed about him there.

Also, dude has a website should you want his perspective.

https://www.georgesoros.com

George Soros is Globalism Incarnate. In other words, "left wing" propaganda on the one hand, and gigantic private profits (in currency speculation in his case) on the other. You can't say anything negative about him (and better be careful with the positive), because if you do, all the Hamas Fan Club members in Che Guevara shirts and interesting facial hair will emerge to scream about "anti-semitism".

I read one of his books once, back when I was still ostensibly sympathetic to his causes. Can't remember the exact title, something about "Open Society". I found it pretty incoherent.

Samtemdo8:

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
Would you also accept the opposite story I would tell you? That the US Army/Military is being inflitrated by Black men who are members of gangs like Bloods and Crips so that they may take advantage of military training and weapons to bolster their gang's power and influance, I like your response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

Your article states that all major gangs have infiltrated the US military. Why single out black gang members?

Because the article has the picture of a Black Man showing a Gang Sign.

And that its been awhile since I read the whole article that I forgot some of the details. And sometimes I still think white supremecists and black gangs are the samething in terms of they are all criminals in the end.

But I do get what you mean, I am not surprised the groups like the Irish and Italian Mafia or Bikers and White Supremecists joined the military to further their goals aswell. Criminals should not be in any of these insititutions.

The scary thing is that if the movie The Departed is anything to go by, these criminal orginizations would foster individuals that have absolutely clean records of no criminality and would use them as moles within these insititutions for various reasons be it espionage or training to bolster the criminal organizations.

I'd agree that Nazis and Black gang members can be classed as criminals. But to differing degrees. Nazis want to kill or imprison everyone who doesn't look a certain way. The gang members want money and will kill anyone who gets in their way. The Nazi use power to enforce their way of life on other. The gang members monopolise and are willing to stand on people rights if necessary. The latter usually ends up with less people dead, and their likely also to be gang members. They can be bribed (I.e. An extortion racket, so forced bribery) while a Nazi will kill you no matter how money you offer.

Still doesn't make any infiltration by anyone good. Like evilthecat states, anyone using their money to influence the political system is bad, irrelevant of which side it is. Same here. Institutions only work when they aren't corrupted.

OP: I personally don't like Soros becuase he had a pissing match contest over how to spend money in Africa with Gates to raise living standards Or rather chickens. They've now both proven to be pretty ineffective at raising the standard of living but waste billions.

I can't remember who organised the de-working program. Although it hasn't lead to any economic improvement, at least that's been really good for their health,

StatusNil:
You can't say anything negative about him (and better be careful with the positive), because if you do, all the Hamas Fan Club members in Che Guevara shirts and interesting facial hair will emerge to scream about "anti-semitism".

Is anyone in this thread doing that? It doesn't even sound very plausible. The Che Guevara tankie-types all hate George Soros. He's one of the 1%. He made billions of dollars exploiting the quirks of a capitalist economy.

Like I said above, Soros is not nearly as far-left as his critics seem to think he is. The alt-right likes to characterise him as a false messiah/evil mastermind of the globalist left-wing insurgency, but he's centre-left at best.

Catnip1024:
The thing is, take out the Jewish aspect, and what you have is a rich man distorting democracy. Which is something people should distrust, be it Soros or Murdoch or Zuckerburg. People gain an amount of power far in excess of the common man and attempt to shape the world to their image.

Yeah, sure. There ought to be stricter limits on campaign finance in most Western nations. But that wasn't the point I was making. What I was saying is that one of the reasons Soros attracts so much heat from the alt-right in comparison to other super-donors is because he neatly slots into an old anti-Semitic stereotype, and the alt-right houses a not-insubstantial number of anti-Semites.

You were asking why the defence of Soros boiled down to accusations of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism isn't the only reason to criticise Soros, not by a long shot, but if you ask me it's probably the reason why he tends to get more heat from the alt-right than other Democrat superdonors such as Warren Buffet.

Catnip1024:
I was referring to the recent elections, rather than Russian policy as a whole. Otherwise you may as well add that he doesn't have a doping regime to help himself do better at the Olympics.

Sure, he's not as bad, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't like people, particularly outsiders, distorting the democratic process through disproportionate use of power.

Ah-uh-uh. Don't backtrack. This is what you said:

Catnip1024:
What I was aware of is that he is an outside influence pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into campaigns to overturn a democratic decision by the local population. Which, when you take away the specifics, is exactly what Russia has been accused of and is currently being vilified for.

The role of wealthy donors in campaign finance is simply not comparable to what Russia gets up to. Donors like Soros work within the boundaries of local election law, flawed as it may be. Putin does not follow election law; Putin commits crimes, puts troops at polling stations and has members of the opposition assassinated. Those are some pretty big specifics you're asking us to overlook.

bastardofmelbourne:

Catnip1024:
I was referring to the recent elections, rather than Russian policy as a whole. Otherwise you may as well add that he doesn't have a doping regime to help himself do better at the Olympics.

Sure, he's not as bad, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't like people, particularly outsiders, distorting the democratic process through disproportionate use of power.

Ah-uh-uh. Don't backtrack. This is what you said:

Catnip1024:
What I was aware of is that he is an outside influence pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into campaigns to overturn a democratic decision by the local population. Which, when you take away the specifics, is exactly what Russia has been accused of and is currently being vilified for.

The role of wealthy donors in campaign finance is simply not comparable to what Russia gets up to. Donors like Soros work within the boundaries of local election law, flawed as it may be. Putin does not follow election law; Putin commits crimes, puts troops at polling stations and has members of the opposition assassinated. Those are some pretty big specifics you're asking us to overlook.

Now, let's pretend you bolded the other half of the paragraph. A large part of the Elections furore comes down to heavy investments in advertising campaigns, with the express intention of affecting a democratic decision by the local population.

So, you know, that is exactly what I said. I never mentioned degrees of magnitude / guilt. I just said it boils down to the same thing.

Catnip1024:
Now, let's pretend you bolded the other half of the paragraph. A large part of the Elections furore comes down to heavy investments in advertising campaigns, with the express intention of affecting a democratic decision by the local population.

So, you know, that is exactly what I said. I never mentioned degrees of magnitude / guilt. I just said it boils down to the same thing.

This is one of those "let's move the goalposts so wide you could drive a semi-trailer through it sideways and then my argument makes sense" deals, isn't it.

If you're simply expressing an opposition to the idea of an individual - any individual - intentionally affecting the outcome of a democratic election, then I hate to admit it, but I guess I'm guilty of trying to subvert the Australian democratic process from all that time I spent in university handing out flyers to people at the Old Quad.

The most important thing i knew about Soros was his currency market speculation/manipulations and the problems he seemed to cause this way.
Then i knew some things about political campaigns he supported.

I didn't know he was a jew. I also didn't know that the far right hated him. But then again i don't actually frequent far right outlets of any kind.

StatusNil:
You can't say anything negative about him... because if you do [people] will emerge to scream about "anti-semitism".

Oh, you poor victim you.

because if you do, all the Hamas Fan Club members in Che Guevara shirts

That scenario is a little quaint. Che Guevara t-shirts have long since been colonised by generic consumerist fashion, and it's doubtful many of the people wearing one the last few years even knows whose face is on their clothing.

Satinavian:
I didn't know he was a jew.

Neither did I until relatively recently. Nor, I suspect, do a great deal of people who have heard of Soros know he's a Jew.

I only found out a couple of years ago because I read an article on opposition to him, which noted that many further-right groups make a big deal of him being a Jew, and dress their criticisms up in lots of ways that imply stereotypical anti-Semitic tropes.

first I've heard of the guy (that am aware of). To be honest, I thought the name was an NPC from Skyrim.
Still, it's nice to know not everyone in the upper echelons of capitalism isn't a detached, short-sighted asshole, who isn't also called Elon Musk, no matter how weak the sauce is.
We gotta take any philanthropic help we can with the ingrained power structures and greed begetting greed. As a game developer once said to a sea of hysterical fans; it's better than nothing

bastardofmelbourne:
This is one of those "let's move the goalposts so wide you could drive a semi-trailer through it sideways and then my argument makes sense" deals, isn't it.

If you're simply expressing an opposition to the idea of an individual - any individual - intentionally affecting the outcome of a democratic election, then I hate to admit it, but I guess I'm guilty of trying to subvert the Australian democratic process from all that time I spent in university handing out flyers to people at the Old Quad.

I was quite clearly talking about a foreign influence spending large amounts on advertising. If Soros was just handing out fliers, I doubt it would have made the news. Likewise, if a bunch of Russians were stood around handing out fliers, people would give less of a shit.

If you misinterpreted my original argument, then apologies for not making it clear enough, but that was my point and my comparison from the beginning.

[quote="bastardofmelbourne" post="528.1041269.24205126"]Is anyone in this thread doing that? It doesn't even sound very plausible. The Che Guevara tankie-types all hate George Soros. He's one of the 1%. He made billions of dollars exploiting the quirks of a capitalist economy.

Like I said above, Soros is not nearly as [far?]-left as his critics seem to think he is. The alt-right likes to characterise him as a false messiah/evil mastermind of the globalist left-wing insurgency, but he's centre-left at best.

The idea of an investment banker being defended by the far left is just an obvious example of how out of touch these critics are with either the far left or George Soros. The man wouldn't be let into an anarchist's club, let's put it that way.

OT: Soros is a popular boogeyman for some. It depends on your perspective. Personally, my favourite boogeyman is Rupert Murdoch, but its really up to the individual's taste. For reference though, Soros merely donated while Murdoch also tapped journalists phones. Politics aside, if you prefer hating Soros to Murdoch you have a case to make.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here