Which of these people do you really hate? Which of them do you think plays a very negative role in American politics? (1) George Soros? (2) The Koch Brothers? Chances are very high that you picked one or the other. Well, in that case ... you'll be horrified to find out that there is now a Union of Good and Evil. I personally am delighted, but that's just me.
You forgot the Rothschild consortium. Curious though - which do you figure is good and which is evil ? I don't necessarily hate any of the above .. don't know these folks and don't know enough about them to comment. Just know that they weld a whole lot of power and political influence. At the end of the day someone has to run things. If it were not these folks then it would be some other group.
Yeah, I was being ironic. If you follow the various political posting boards, or generally liberal and/or conservative discussions, you'll see that the Left hate the Koch Brothers, and the Right hate George Soros. Of course both are mega-wealthy, and use some of their money to advance the political causes of which they approve. Soros generally likes social-democratic and liberal causes and the Koch Brothers are libertarians. However, both have worked out that the United States does not have to be involved in endless wars in the Third World. Even from the point of view of naked self-interest, involvement in these wars is usually futile, even counter-productive to the ends that Left and Right might like to see there: democratic government in the case of the former, pro-American government in the case of the latter. We generally get neither. Not good for business, either, unless you manufacture arms or body bags. Since in the US Left and Right are practically looking at each other over gun sights on most issues, it's nice to see an issue on which almost everyone, except the Cold War establishment in Washington, can agree. I agree with you with respect to your general observations. I might not like the excessive political power that millionaires have, but as a rule the angry people who want to replace them would be far worse.
This seems very fishy to me, since it's Soros Open Society Foundation's regime changes that are causing the wars. Am I wrong?
It's ironic that many conservatives hate George Soros, when in fact he did a lot to further the neo-conservative idea that the spread of democracy was a good thing. I initially was a great enthusiast for the Open Society Foundation, until it began to become just another Left wing institution ... something which seems to happen regularly with good causes, like Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union. The difference between the neo-conservatives -- or a large number of them -- and Soros seemed to be that they were too quick to want to use American military force, or its threat, to spread democracy, while Soros concentrated on training the people -- for instance journalists -- who would work from within for that sort of transformation. Peaceful political change requires people who know how to organize meetings, write leaflets, write press releases, speak on radio, etc. In totalitarian and authoritarian societies those are skills which are in short supply. That's something I am all for. However, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the details of the Open Society Foundation to comment further. I do believe that national pride is something many Americans don't understand in other nations. No one likes another country, or even non-governmental outsiders, meddling in their internal affairs, whether at the governmental level, or further down. This has to be balanced by the fact that international solidarity and support has been very important in transforming societies in a democratic direction: the huge international protest around the Chilean coup, and subsequent support for democrats there, plus, finally (and ironically) American pressure on the Chilean dictatorship to respect the results of a referendum they held and unexpectedly lost, helped move Chile back to democracy. Many anti-imperialist movements received substantial help from the Soviet Union. So there isn't some sort of clear line to follow, when it comes to help from across the border for people struggling for national independence or democracy. Whatever about the Open Society, I don't think it's causing the various wars we see. There are much more profound reasons, both internal to these societies and external to them, which contribute to instability. And instability is not always a bad thing. Surely you are glad that the old Soviet Union became unstable? And outside help of various sorts played a role, although a very minor one, in that.
This is an UNHOLY Union. If you look in the South African Liberal playbook you'll find similar under section titled; Neutralising the Right wing George Soros funds rebellions, here is a map of how deep his destructive influence goes in South Africa... imagine what happens when all these organisations protest over whatever it is they are funded to destabilise the country for... the results speak for itself. Democracies are failing everywhere.... destabilised and corrupt https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/2621AC16-B59A-99CE-A39C-4A83AD1A120C#-4
I have no use for the tens of millions of so-called Americans who are too stupid to know facts from lies...
I think that George Soros is an ideologue on the order of Trotsky and believes in one world currency and a 'liberal' one world government. As an ideologue, he doesn't care how many people die and suffer as long as the end he want's is achieved. Does he see himself as being evil? No, he considers himself a humanitarian that wants to change the world. Is he evil? Yes! I know that the organizations he supports have been banned in many countries and the latest was Macedonia. They were carrying placards saying; Soros out! He was supporting in that tiny country about 40 organizations and it was causing a lot of internal friction. He's doing this everywhere.
Hm, three guys that drive the conspiracy theorists on both sides bonkers teaming up to try to stop endless war? The entertainment opportunities are endless, and hopefully they'll do good work. Win-win.
The Right hate Soros, and the Left hate the Koch brothers. Few people on either side know much about them. But Soros, on the Left, has tried to help bring democracy to countries with regimes the Right hates as well, and the Koch brothers are Libertarians, who are on the Right in some sense -- at least that part of the Right that professes to believe in free markets -- but their Libertarian views -- for example, they are pro-gay marriage -- are actually anathema to a large section of the Right. But of course since they are wealthy, and they have a global vision, which is anathema to many on the Right, they come in for a lot of attacks from nationalists. Donald Trump attacked the Koch brothers last year as 'globalists'. And with their name, probably the open and covert anti-Semites believe they are Jewish, like Soros, although in fact they are not. (The poor Jews! They are successful in business and in everything else they undertake, so the Left hates them. They don't subscribe to the local superstition so the Right hates them. No wonder they want their own country as a bolt-hole.) However, what these men have in common is this: they are very intelligent, and having made their money, they have had the free time to think about the world and to try to put it to rights as they see it. On many, maybe most, current hot issues their politics is not the same, maybe even opposed. But they understand one thing: whether they succeed in making a country a liberal democracy with a lot of social-democratic and Leftist reforms -- Soros -- or a liberal democracy with very little government intervention in the economy - the Koch Brothers -- won't matter a fig if we get into a big war. Even the lead-up to wars -- economic sanctions, proxy wars, the maneuvers to gain strategic military advantage -- are inimical to democracy, to civil liberties and to the concept of the small state. "War is the health of the state" is an old anarchist saying and it's right. But not to a social-democratic state and not to small-government state. And again, being wealthy, they don't have to spend most of their time earning a living -- they can read extensively, hire knowledgeable advisors, and no doubt have access to sources of information denied to the rest of us. And they don't like the way the world seems to be drifting towards war. It will be interesting to see what their joint enterprise actually says about what is happening in the world, and, more importantly, what they propose to do about it. It will be especially interesting, to me anyway, to see if Henry Kissinger can be brought on board. From what I have read of him recently (admittedly not a lot) he seems to have a very sensible idea of what the US needs to do, vis-a-vis China. The current situation has brought about many hugely ironic developments in politics, especially in the United States which, due to its geographical position in the world, has many people on both Left and Right who actually know very little about political developments in foreign countries. We have seen far Leftists cheering on reactionary Islamists who would hang the former if they had power, we have seen pro-Zionists cheering on near-anti-Semites in Eastern Europe because at the moment hard-Right nationalism is directed at stopping Muslim immigration to their countries. There is a sense in which this is all very amusing, as other posters have pointed out. We all like to feel superior, and laughing at such contradictions is a pleasant diversion in a time, to quote Kipling, 'when jests are few'. The 1931 Nazi-Communist alliance to bring down a Socialist government in Prussia no doubt made some of their enemies laugh out loud, but no one was laughing eight years later.
The Koch brudders ally themselves to anyone who will help them get more money. Lately that's democrats. Soros or Koch brudders all interfere with the national life of many nations. Globalist bastards all.
You see, we can't stop the knitting together of the nations, first of all economically, then culturally, then, finally physically. There is no central HQ of shadowy conspirators rubbing their hands together and going "Ha ha ha, our evil plot to destroy XXXXXX culture is succeeding beyond our wildest dreams!" -- with "XXXXX" being whatever people love, and see changing before their eyes: America, Christianity, Hungary, Islam, Communism .... believe me, all over the world, from mosque and madrassas in Pakistan, to the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee, there are people deploring the effects of globalization ... how they would love to throw an inpenetrable wall around their countries. Can't be done. All that is solid melts into air. But ... we can try to intervene in this process and make its outcome a good one. Unregulated economic transactions, uncontrolled immigration, these things have bad effects. The hard Left see an opportunity to open up the pre-existing racial fracture lines in the US -- a sensible immigration policy could counter that. But the profound transformations that the world is undergoing will generate refugees ... fleeing Islamic theocracy, fleeing socialist failure, fleeing murderous drug gangs -- we need to have some answer to these problems other than just 'Go away!'. I don't have that answer, but it needs to be discussed. The Kochs and Soros want to keep us from slamming our fists into any new Middle East tar babies. How can that be a bad thing?
The problem with ideologues like Soros, is that they want to form the world in their own image. An image that has been formed from their own historical experiences and the limits of their own upbringing and the society they live in - not to mention their inherent weaknesses and defense mechanisms. It's arrogance, pure arrogance, for they have made themselves 'gods' and the decisive factor of what is and what should be and impose it on a world that consists of innate differences - even within same language, ethnicity and religion. The world would be one large prison akin to the USSR. Contrary to Soros' one world government, I favor the Christianity of our Founding Fathers and their beliefs of smaller government and less control over peoples lives. Something that doesn't exist anymore - or at least in Washington it doesn't. I guess I'm an ideologue of a different hue, one that believes everyone should leave everyone else alone. Take that you fools of misery, for we are gods of lofty see, and dwellest not like folks below who knowest not, but what we show. In the media that is - Jeannette
I don't hate either one. I think it is beyond stupid to give money to politicians and political parties but it is their money.
That's not the worst 'ideology' to have, by a long way. If all nations were homogeneous, and static, it would be the obvious one to hold. But they're not -- so we have to choose: for example, after a few years of the bloody Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, a lot -- a majority -- of Chileans had had enough, and wanted a return to democracy. But not all of them. Should non-Chileans have 'had a side' there? (I'm not talking about governments.) I think they should have, and should have used whatever small power outsiders can have in such a situation, to aid the pro-democracy people. I think organizations like Amnesty International, in its original incarnation anyway, and the Minority Rights Group, and the Human Rights Watch, do or did an admirable job. When the Rohingya Muslims, or the Sri Lankan Tamils,or Musims and Sikhs in India, or the Uighyrs of China, are persecuted, should we not take a stand? Again, I'm not talking about governments, but about us as individuals. As I recall, you took a stand, in support of the Syrian government. I won't argue about whether that was right or wrong, but you had a side there. It's not something we can avoid.
They're pretty smart guys when it comes to money. They probably think they'll find some honest politicians, and I am sure you know what the definition of an honest politician is.
That's where you are wrong... it's YOUR money... it's public money that end up in their pockets. How do you think so much public money disappears? Because people like Soros takes it. This money vvv is schools, housing and hospitals for ordinary people. https://theeconreview.com/2018/10/16/how-soros-broke-the-british-pound/ make no mistake, Soros is NO philanthropist, today most of the new Democracies he created are corrupt and dysfunctional... money from these states have disappeared into the pockets of corrupt officials... the world are infinitely worse off for his efforts but 113 countries have declined... https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/cpi_2018_global_analysis
Either you didn't look or you don't understand because I have already given you evidence.... here But here is another source... you need to understand that this is British TAXPAYER MONEY... public funds generally used to build infrastructure such as hospitals, Universities, schools and even assist the poor who can't afford to eat. https://moneymorning.com/2015/06/10/how-did-george-soros-break-the-bank-of-england/
