4 ms·

> He has set up a fund with about 32 billion dollars in it, explicitly for the purpose of ensuring society follows his preferred path - one world government, op

by croon 9y ago

> He has set up a fund with about 32 billion dollars in it, explicitly for the purpose of ensuring society follows his preferred path - one world government, open borders everywhere, EU replacing national governments, legal abortion everywhere, mass migration from Africa and so on. 1) You're making a few assumptions. * Taking refugees is not the same as open borders and mass migration. * Nation cooperation is not the same as world government. 2) I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is, but that's beside the point I guess. 3) You specifically acknowledge he's open about this, in multiple of your paragraphs, and I fail to see where in the flow chart he makes money from this. So it all boils down to him having amassed a huge fortune and now using this for causes he ostensibly believes in. It's all fine if you strongly disagree with those politics, but to build on GP, it's interesting that Soros is blamed for everything from bussing in illegal voters to something something pedophile rings. > 2. He is likely being disingenuous about his real reasons. He says "think of the children" but his foundation is not about child protection. It puts far more emphasis on migration policies than that. Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? In your point just before you explicitly state that "it is a public instruction". Then why can't it be about child protection if that is his public instruction. It's hilarious to me that the same people crying wolf about Soros have zero reservations about the news outlets, think tanks, politicians that get immense amounts of money from the Kochs and Mercers, where there is clear financial gain for doing so.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Taking refugees is not the same as open borders and mass migration. Nation cooperation is not the same as world government. Your statement is true. But Soros and his foundation supports the latter in both cases, so it's also not relevant. Here are some quotes to show this is true. Note that I am not Hungarian and don't particularly care about Soros myself. However the criticisms of what he's doing aren't conspiracy theories or the ravings of lunatics. It's quite well documented and open. For instance, after a memo was leaked from his foundation, the OSF said this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743479/Left-wing-billionaire-group-s-plan-use-migrant-crisis-influence-immigration-policies-worldwide-Plans-George-Soros-s-think-tank-revealed-leaked-memo.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743479/Left-wing-bi... The OSF told MailOnline: 'We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity ... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard. Note the foundation talks about migration in general, not refugees. With respect to one world government, Soros has said: “Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” Albeit, this quote is old, I do not know offhand if he's said similar things recently. I got this from a few minutes Googling, not deep personal knowledge. Suffice it to say that he's a big supporter of the EU and its vision of replacing national governments. Note that the EU is currently trying to force Hungary to take migrants (not refugees), against the Hungarian government's will. So that's one reason they don't like him there. I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is I have no problem with it. I used it as an example of the kinds of policies he funds. For instance, to try and change the politics of Ireland. Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. However, if you go to the website of the OSF or look at what things Soros has funded, they're all very much in the area of highly controversial or even unpopular policies that have nothing to do with children but which frequently crop up on social media. The only thing visible on the OSF web page above the fold is about migration. So, I'm not surprised people might look for ulterior motives. In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros.
- rainingmonkey 9y ago
  You reference an article from The Daily Mail. In case you weren't aware, the Mail is so prone pushing their agenda over the facts that Wikipedia consider citations from the Mail invalid, given their "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  There are interests which transcend state boundaries: environmental pollution, fisheries management, maritime law, response to large-scale disasters, war crimes, slavery, human trafficking, resettlement of refugees, weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, ... There already exist a variety of international organizations to tackle these in various ways, established by international treaties... This does not by any means replace national government.
- croon 9y ago
  > In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros. The sixth hit for your Soros quote is Breitbart (most prior being googles own hits, and most following being glenn beck and other right wing "pundits"), which is almost entirely funded by Rebekah Mercer, previously Robert Mercer I'm not questioning it's accuracy, only the motive for posting it. Also relevant for the dailymail link: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ >> Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? > Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. And yet you did. > Here are some quotes to show this is true > "... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard." Emphasis mine. I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it, but I know what you linked and their motives, and that I could find a charitable interpretation of the quote.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago

by croon 9y ago

peoplewindow 9y ago

Taking refugees is not the same as open borders and mass migration. Nation cooperation is not the same as world government. Your statement is true. But Soros and his foundation supports the latter in both cases, so it's also not relevant. Here are some quotes to show this is true. Note that I am not Hungarian and don't particularly care about Soros myself. However the criticisms of what he's doing aren't conspiracy theories or the ravings of lunatics. It's quite well documented and open. For instance, after a memo was leaked from his foundation, the OSF said this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743479/Left-wing-billionaire-group-s-plan-use-migrant-crisis-influence-immigration-policies-worldwide-Plans-George-Soros-s-think-tank-revealed-leaked-memo.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743479/Left-wing-bi... The OSF told MailOnline: 'We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity ... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard. Note the foundation talks about migration in general, not refugees. With respect to one world government, Soros has said: “Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” Albeit, this quote is old, I do not know offhand if he's said similar things recently. I got this from a few minutes Googling, not deep personal knowledge. Suffice it to say that he's a big supporter of the EU and its vision of replacing national governments. Note that the EU is currently trying to force Hungary to take migrants (not refugees), against the Hungarian government's will. So that's one reason they don't like him there. I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is I have no problem with it. I used it as an example of the kinds of policies he funds. For instance, to try and change the politics of Ireland. Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. However, if you go to the website of the OSF or look at what things Soros has funded, they're all very much in the area of highly controversial or even unpopular policies that have nothing to do with children but which frequently crop up on social media. The only thing visible on the OSF web page above the fold is about migration. So, I'm not surprised people might look for ulterior motives. In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros.

rainingmonkey 9y ago
You reference an article from The Daily Mail. In case you weren't aware, the Mail is so prone pushing their agenda over the facts that Wikipedia consider citations from the Mail invalid, given their "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.
jacobolus 9y ago
There are interests which transcend state boundaries: environmental pollution, fisheries management, maritime law, response to large-scale disasters, war crimes, slavery, human trafficking, resettlement of refugees, weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, ... There already exist a variety of international organizations to tackle these in various ways, established by international treaties... This does not by any means replace national government.
croon 9y ago
> In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros. The sixth hit for your Soros quote is Breitbart (most prior being googles own hits, and most following being glenn beck and other right wing "pundits"), which is almost entirely funded by Rebekah Mercer, previously Robert Mercer I'm not questioning it's accuracy, only the motive for posting it. Also relevant for the dailymail link: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ >> Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies? > Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. And yet you did. > Here are some quotes to show this is true > "... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard." Emphasis mine. I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it, but I know what you linked and their motives, and that I could find a charitable interpretation of the quote.
- peoplewindow 9y ago