What has George Soros done that is so terrible?

[velcro]

Please help me to learn more about this.

Actual evidence with sources please.  I won't quibble over your definition of terrible, but I will point out unfounded accusations, or distortion of facts and sources.

If the complaint is that he gives money to causes, keep in mind a few things:
-Is he open about where his money goes?  (Sure, if it is really secret, we would have no evidence, but that is not a valid argument.  I could secretly be Barbra Streisand, but absent any evidence, it is ridiculous to make the claim)
-Ignoring his philosophy, how is he different from the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson?

Thanks.

[Pete at Home]

Dude!  Soros annoys me some times but who the hell ever said that he was worse than, or even as bad as, the Koch brothers?  Hell man, at his worst I would not call him even as bad as Rupert Murdoch, let alone the Koch brothers.

If anyone ever accused Soros of being a dark shadowy figure interfering with US policies, but then turned around and defended the Koch brothers, under THAT set of facts, I could understand you saying that Antisemitism was a factor.

Thanks for starting this thread.  I plan to take a back seat and inform myself, but if you'd like me to chime in, shake my tree.

Edited to add:   In my opinion, Velcro has just authored one of the best OPs for a derivative thread that I've ever seen on Ornery since its inception.  (to be more precise, since I joined Ornery in 2000 or 2001 as under the "Pete" sig.)  If anyone here can offer vigorous, light-shedding and respectful responses to Velcro's OP question, I would regard that a personal favor.

[Fenring]

The worst thing offhand I've heard Soros accused of is helping to instigate a coup d'etat in the Ukraine. I'm not saying I've seen strong evidence this is true, but this is the sort of thing people who have it in for him believe he's done. I've also heard the story that he instigates false flag protesters to undermine causes (such as for instance sending the fake BLM protesters to disrupt Bernie's rally). For those who think along these lines Soros is sort of pegged as a mini-Kissinger.

I know the thread topic is about what there's proof for, but it seems to me what it's really asking is why he's the subject of accusations, so the reasons above are partly why. I doubt it's because "he's a Jew." Did he really do those things? I don't know. But if the thread is only about what there's concrete proof for, then it's probably not going to yield anything interesting. For such people that do very bad things (whether or not Soros is one of them) they don't leave proof lying around like in a video game.

[Pete at Home]

The worst thing offhand I've heard Soros accused of is helping to instigate a coup d'etat in the Ukraine. I'm not saying I've seen strong evidence this is true, but this is the sort of thing people who have it in for him believe he's done. I've also heard the story that he instigates false flag protesters to undermine causes (such as for instance sending the fake BLM protesters to disrupt Bernie's rally). For those who think along these lines Soros is sort of pegged as a mini-Kissinger.

I know that Hillary did the first, instigating the fascist Ukraine coup that resulted in Putin's seizing the Crimea.  And I thought that it was a Clinton staffer that sent the ... unrepresentative ... BLM protesters (including that evil Marissa Johnson psycho that Pyr defended to me and I hope now will admit that he was WRONG about that whore Johnson).  But I may also have been wrong as it now seems more likely that Putin's the slimeball that funded Johnson and her thugs, thus assuring Trump's election.

BTW, I have concluded after long study that Putin got Trump elected, and that Putin accomplished this primarily by getting Hillary nominated.  It wouldn't be fair to call Hillary a "mini-Kissinger."  Au contraire: Kissinger prepared the way for Hillary, and personally mentored and promoted her, but as for sheer ruthlessness Kissinger was unworthy to unlatch Hillary's footwear.

To borrow a meme from John Brown's Body: Henry Kissinger was John the Baptist for the Hillary that was to be. 

Can you imagine how traditional antisemites would have comped with the election of Bernie Sanders, a president who was at the same time
(1) history's most formidable opponent to schemes and manipulations by powerful shadowy bankers and (2) a Jew?  Talk about a cognitive dissonance bombshell.  It would have been enough to make an american antisemite's head implode.

[TheDeamon]

Actual evidence with sources please.  I won't quibble over your definition of terrible, but I will point out unfounded accusations, or distortion of facts and sources.

If the complaint is that he gives money to causes, keep in mind a few things:
-Is he open about where his money goes?  (Sure, if it is really secret, we would have no evidence, but that is not a valid argument.  I could secretly be Barbra Streisand, but absent any evidence, it is ridiculous to make the claim)
-Ignoring his philosophy, how is he different from the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson?

On the last point, he isn't (much) different, he's just been at much longer.

The other thing to remember is the "shell game" that often gets played with this stuff. He donates to foundation A which claims _____, which in turn "donates" to foundation/cause B, where the might once get rolled around a bit before ending up in the coffers of a group C or D before all is said and done. It also makes for prime fodder for conspiracy theories as it is virtually impossible for anyone outside of the respective organizations to know how much they were being influenced in regards to where that money went. Or if a "simple understanding" existed on how it was shuffled/laundered around.

 But going back to the refrain that Soros has helped shape a lot of the proverbial battlefield here is one example, although not particularly objectionable:

https://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/moveonorg/

MoveOn.org has grown into a major political force — both at the grassroots and national level. It was a 527 committee that took unlimited contributions from major Democratic donors. During the 2004 presidential campaign, MoveOn.org was the seventh-largest 527 committee and spent $21 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Initial donors included billionaire George Soros, a major donor to liberal causes, who spent millions in 2004 trying unsuccessfully to defeat President Bush.

And playing on the laundering/shuffling money around front, even factcheck has a recent example:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/does-ocasio-cortez-have-ties-to-soros/

The stories point to Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance on The Young Turks, a liberal internet show, as evidence that she is tied to the liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

Ocasio-Cortez did appear on The Young Turks, which is supported in part by a nonprofit that has received a grant from a group that gets some of its funding from a Soros foundation. In fact, she credited the online show with giving her campaign exposure. But her campaign has not received any funding from Soros.

The Young Turks is supported by The Media Consortium, which describes itself as a “network of independent and community media outlets dedicated to values-driven journalism.” In 2017, the most recent year for which information is available, The Media Consortium got funding from the Chicago Community Trust, the Park Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, and the Media Democracy Fund. The Media Democracy Fund lists 12 funding partners and one of them is Soros’ the Open Society Foundations.

So yeah, that one is rather DEEP into tin foilf hat territory, but it is an example of how his money doesn't just go to one place and stay there.

[velcro]

I know the thread topic is about what there's proof for, but it seems to me what it's really asking is why he's the subject of accusations, so the reasons above are partly why. I doubt it's because "he's a Jew." Did he really do those things? I don't know. But if the thread is only about what there's concrete proof for, then it's probably not going to yield anything interesting. For such people that do very bad things (whether or not Soros is one of them) they don't leave proof lying around like in a video game.

Actually, what it's really asking is what there's proof for.  "Actual evidence".  What you provided was exactly what I did not want to deal with, i.e. unfounded theories.

As far as your comment on "not leaving proof around":
I accuse Tom Hanks of horrible crimes. I have no evidence whatsoever, not even hints, but obviously someone as wealthy and influential as him can easily hide all his evil-doing.

Do you see the inherent flaw in the reasoning?  Anyone and everyone can be guilty if they have any capability of hiding guilt.  I addressed that with my Streisand analogy, but not very clearly.

[Fenring]

velcro, I believe I already address those points. But based on what you're demanding, as I said you're going to get no real answers. I hope you don't conclude that since no evidence has been presented that Soros is clean. I don't actually know if he is. But based on your reasoning we're overstepping by suggesting that Al Capone did anything more than tax evasion. 

[TheDrake]

Wikipedia has lots of things Soros actually did, if anyone is legitimately interested in the question.

I've never cared a fig for Soros or Koch money into politics, that is all the question outside of the conspiracy theories. Many of these went to 527 groups with somewhat limited transparency, though not unique to him.

[Pete at Home]

Fenring. What does the term “actual proof “mean to you?

 If I offered you evidence satisfying the standard of proof under the federal rules of evidence that Elka pone caused the Valentine’s Day massacre, and operated prostitution and illegal alcohol snuggling,  Would you concede to take your analogy between alkaline and George Soros had failed?

[Fenring]

Fenring. What does the term “actual proof “mean to you?

 If I offered you evidence satisfying the standard of proof under the federal rules of evidence that Elka pone caused the Valentine’s Day massacre, and operated prostitution and illegal alcohol snuggling,  Would you concede to take your analogy between alkaline and George Soros had failed?

To be honest I haven't taken much time to research Soros to maybe you can find stuff. I really don't know. I would have expected it would be difficult but I'd be happy to be wrong about that. Btw I was referring to really illegal stuff, not stuff like stuffing money into campaigns using loopholes or financing fundraising galas. I'm sure you can find plenty of proof of him doing things that might be upsetting but that aren't crime lord type things.

[TheDrake]

Breitbart Soros Stories

I honestly don't see much that lands in the anti-Semitic bucket, even in the comments sections, and its not like Breitbart commenters hold back or get banned.

There are people suggesting he should be executed, that he is part of a globalist elite that wants to enslave us all, that he pays protesters at all manner of events in every country, etc. And of course they are upset that he is rich enough to have an actual impact as he fights against draconian immigration policies and other MAGA beliefs.

I think they are mostly mad because he is effective at mounting attacks against what they hold most dear in the America First world view.

[velcro]

velcro, I believe I already address those points. But based on what you're demanding, as I said you're going to get no real answers. I hope you don't conclude that since no evidence has been presented that Soros is clean. I don't actually know if he is. But based on your reasoning we're overstepping by suggesting that Al Capone did anything more than tax evasion. 

No offense, but if you addressed it, other than saying "where there's smoke, there's fire", I missed it.  And nobody has shown me any smoke.

I am not actually demanding anything.  If by "real answers" you mean evidence of actual wrongdoing, I don't know - that's why I asked the question.

We are overstepping by suggesting Al Capone did anything that there is absolutely no evidence for.  I will leave it up to you to decide what there is or is not evidence for.

[Pete at Home]

If I had a billion dollars, I'd probably sponsor eco-pirates to attack the vessels (mostly Chinese) that destroy coral reefs and give guns and mines to Amazon forest natives against logger incursions.  I suppose a PR agent would probably suggest converting to Judaism once I make a billion to immunize me against claims that i'm trying to take over the world.  I'll have to check if Pinky and the Brain ever use that one.

[velcro]

Pete,

I will repeat the point, yet again.

If you are actually trying to take over the world, you can be accused of trying to take over the world without anti-semitism.

Your "joke" is like saying you should have been a black in Alabama in the 60's so that you could take advantage of the Civil Rights movement.

I'm done.

[Pete at Home]

I haven’t missed your point.  You have offered no objective evidence of the Jewish billionaire is less likely to try to conduct accusations ivities reasonably interpretable as “taking over the world.”

Are the Cohn brothers Jerwish? Because in 20-6 when accused of swinging the election for Hillary, the Cohan’s called the accusation a “blood libel.”

Seriously.

Do you see my concern?

[velcro]

“I’m concerned that the prevalence of conspiracy theories about Soros which paint him as a larger than life, powerful figure has the effect of shrinking that public space where anti-Semitism is not acceptable,” said the ADL’s Tuchman. “If you have fully embraced the notion that there is a powerful Jewish figure manipulating social and political movements around the world to promote his agenda, you’re inching toward the edges of that space where anti-Semitism is acceptable. Soros is a liminal figure in that way.”

Good article.

[Pete at Home]

Velcro, are the Cohn brothers Jewish?  And is that a question that a reporter should have to even ask before depicting them as shadowy figures who manipulate US politics for their own benefit?  Do you disagree that the meme fits the Cohn brothers?  Should they get away with what they do just because their name sounds as pseudo jewish as Blofeld?

[Pete at Home]

Pete,

I will repeat the point, yet again.

If you are actually trying to take over the world, you can be accused of trying to take over the world without anti-semitism.

Your "joke" is like saying you should have been a black in Alabama in the 60's so that you could take advantage of the Civil Rights movement.

If you're saying that a Jewish person in the United States faces as much oppression as "a black" in Alabama in the 1960s,
or that that the suppression of free speech that you're advocating somehow parallels the Civil Rights movement,
then I urge you to rethink the reasonableness of your position.

Alternately, if it's me that's somehow missing out on a massive widespread problem of violent antisemitism in the USA today, analogous to anti-black terrorism in 1960s Alabama, then please lay out your case.  I'm aware of what happened in Pittsburgh. 

You seem to be using Trump's hateful invective against LATINOS to argue that Trump had inspired Pittsburgh.  Dude, Latinos aren't Jews.  And I've never seen you use an argument that seems like dishonest sleight of hand before.  Making such inane accusations against Trump makes you Trump's greatest ally.  The time people spend chasing your rabbit hole down to wonderland is time they might have spent noticing his actual crimes against the American people.

[Pete at Home]

Calling for suppression of free speech, even if enforced by a non government mechanism, should NEVER be compared to the Civil Rights movement.  That's not just false equivalence; that's the vilest, least liberal comparison that I've heard on this board since we lost the Nazi and the Maoist Blayne Bradley.  Please velcro, rethink and repudiate what you just said.  It's beneath you.

[Pete at Home]

My point is, Soros demonstrates that it's not necessarily a bad thing for a billionaire to use his (or in Oprah's case, her) money to make the world a better place in his or her estimation.  Soros' manipulations can be partially credited for the triumph of the marriage neutering movement in the USA (which I opposed) but even more clearly, Soros helped collapse the Soviet Union.  And for that he deserves unqualified praise.  So for good and bad (mostly good) Soros has changed the course of world and US history.  Some might reasonably interpret that as "taking over the world."  Particularly if they are butt-sore about the fall of the Soviet Union (swell violins)

[Fenring]

My point is, Soros demonstrates that it's not necessarily a bad thing for a billionaire to use his (or in Oprah's case, her) money to make the world a better place in his or her estimation.  Soros' manipulations can be partially credited for the triumph of the marriage neutering movement in the USA (which I opposed) but even more clearly, Soros helped collapse the Soviet Union.  And for that he deserves unqualified praise.  So for good and bad (mostly good) Soros has changed the course of world and US history.  Some might reasonably interpret that as "taking over the world."  Particularly if they are butt-sore about the fall of the Soviet Union (swell violins)

I would say that there are three factors here to examine: methods, targets, and ultimate goals.

Methods can include peaceful means, protesting, violence, torture, fomenting rebellion, etc.
Targets can include governments, parties, public opinion, etc.
Goals are more nebulous and we generally won't hear about those; they can include "one world government", American supremacy, arms deals (money), peace, furthering one's career, etc.

To examine someone like Soros, I think it's important to visit all three categories. Someone may have a goal you agree with and be targeting people they shouldn't, or be using methods that are unethical. Or someone can be doing things that look good at first glance (useful methods) but with ultimate goals that you would consider to be horrible (like for instance "fighting bad guys in Syria" with the ultimate goal of war profiteering).

I can't assess Soros clearly enough to visit him on these categories, but I just wanted to mention that checking off one or even two of them does not mean we should applaud the person. As demanding as it sounds, all three have to be lined up or else there's a problem.

 

[velcro]

Calling for suppression of free speech, even if enforced by a non government mechanism, should NEVER be compared to the Civil Rights movement.  That's not just false equivalence; that's the vilest, least liberal comparison that I've heard on this board since we lost the Nazi and the Maoist Blayne Bradley.  Please velcro, rethink and repudiate what you just said.  It's beneath you.

Please don't misrepresent what I said.  My analogy was this:

claim to be Jewish so people will not repeat anti-Semitic lies about you::wanting to be black so you will be protected by the Civil Rights act

[Pete at Home]

Calling for suppression of free speech, even if enforced by a non government mechanism, should NEVER be compared to the Civil Rights movement.  That's not just false equivalence; that's the vilest, least liberal comparison that I've heard on this board since we lost the Nazi and the Maoist Blayne Bradley.  Please velcro, rethink and repudiate what you just said.  It's beneath you.

Please don't misrepresent what I said.  My analogy was this:

claim to be Jewish so people will not repeat anti-Semitic lies about you::wanting to be black so you will be protected by the Civil Rights act

I don’t understand the difference between your restatement and mine. I don’t see it but I believe, since you say so, that you find the distinction important.

Civil rights analogy to what?

Also, you analogies conversion to Judaism to, what, going in blackface? How do you just become black?

Do you agree or disagree with the point that since the 1960s, Set a Jewish person is more likely to be killed defending the civil rights of another group such as African-Americans, then actually killed by anti-Semites?  Is that a Jewish version is less likely to be murdered by anti-some lights in the United States today then Tel Aviv are just about any other place or time in history?