Soros's Foundation to Exit Hungary Amid Crackdown, Presse Says - Critique

Newly re-elected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has declared Open Society Foundations, organisations funded by billionaire international currency speculator, George Soros, unwelcome in Hungary. I think he is right. Soros funds, in tens of billions of dollars, lots of Non Government Organisations (NGOs) around the world, many of them through his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Although these NGOs usually identify as 'charities' or 'grass roots' movements, all have in common the political aims of open borders and identity politics, a form of balkanisation. Backed by billions, not millions of dollars, this is the opposite of democracy. In Australia GetUp, which has links to the Australian Greens and the Labor Party, is one of the best known of Soros-linked foundations. (See "Australian democracy swiss-cheesed by George Soros Open Societies Foundations.") GetUp collects your information and resells it or uses it for its own political ends, employing 'organisers' to find and interact with likely prospects for influencing Australian politics the GetUp way (and they don't like population restraint). GetUp has also been running very expensive campaigns to prevent their being obliged to declare themselves as political lobbyists, although they describe this as campaigning for democracy. (See GetUp vid about 'attack on democracy'.) Interesting problem, isn't it? See John Bentley here: "Diversionary tactics, smokescreens and the Electoral Funding and Disclosure Bill 2017.") Soros also funds the 350.org, which has empowered the Shoalhaven Greens to fight the Adani Coal Mine in Queensland, driving down its share prices. Sounds good to you? But, meanwhile, Mr Soros massively invested in coal and fossil fuels as the share price fell. You could say, well, Mr Soros is profiting from bad to fund good - except that he is funding coal, anyway. A number of writers in the Australian Independent Media Network (AIMN) defend Soros when people criticise him, which makes me think that AIMN isn't all that independent. The financial press, such as Bloomberg and investing.com defend Soros like some kind of white knight. See, for instance, https://m.investing.com/news/world-news/civil-organizations-in-hungary-brace-for-government-crackdown-on-ngos-1413683?ampMode=1.

The bigger picture

George Soros's influence has seen identity politics manifest through the calculated funding and training up of 'minorities' (or those who claim to represent them) so that they are able to skew national politics and real grassroots, always to the end of promoting high immigration and wedge politics. Open Society Foundations funded political support for the wave of mass immigration of refugees and others to Germany that began in 2015. Mr Soros's political manipulations seem sometimes to bring currencies down (see interview in video below, "60 Minutes: One Evil Man - The Exposé on George Soros.") Some believe that Soros backs wars, such as those in the Middle East, profiting in part from weapons investments and in part from reconstruction after disasters (known as 'disaster capitalism') and probably buying and selling currency as it goes up and down in response to wars. The Panama Papers recently revealed that Soros has invested private equity with the Carlyle Group, a private equity partnership that specializes in buying and selling weapons manufacturing and intelligence gathering companies with government and military contracts and it also uses secret offshore companies to conduct business. (See "Panama Papers reveal George Soros' deep money ties to secretive weapons, intel investment firm."

Soros' financial support for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign seemed obvious from the identity politics she pursued, but the film below shows Soros visiting Haiti after the 2014 earthquake with the Clintons on Clinton Foundation business. Read here for more about his investments. Soros's main game seems to be to buy a country's currency when it is going through tough times, and to sell it when the country is on the mend. He seems to be in the business of promoting mass population movements, including those caused by war. The economic effect of mass population movements is to drive up demand for and inflate the price of major infrastructure and resources, which benefits investors in these. This is known as 'disaster capitalism'. Although Soros is behind the 350.org organisation which militates against fossil fuel and has had a high profile in Greens politics against the Adani Coal Mine in Queensland, his is also investing in these fossil fuel resources. See, Richard Pollock, "George Soros Makes Massive Financial Investments On Fossil Fuels" and Thomas Landstreet #8b8e1881f4d6">'Soros Doesn't Like Coal Stocks; He Likes Money'. How might we explain this? Well, if Soros puts money into making it politically difficult for the petroleum and coal mining industries, that means that he can buy their shares more cheaply. Today, in an article that Soros should have paid for if he didn't, Bloomberg has recently characterised him simply as a 'holocaust survivor' but Soros himself described how he survived by identifying as a Christian and pointing out jews to the Nazis. (See more below).

Bloomberg Soros's Foundation to Exit Hungary Amid Crackdown, Presse Says accuses Hungary of opting for an 'illiberal state' rather than what they call the EU's 'liberal democratic model' - which many in European countries think is wrecking their democracies. Bloomberg also promotes the heroic idea that Soros is a Holocaust survivor, but the story is not so straightforward.

Bloomberg goes on to say

"The move follows the re-election of Prime Minister Viktor Orban for a third consecutive term earlier this month, after a campaign demonizing Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor Soros and promising a crackdown against NGOs he supports. Orban has condemned the European Union’s liberal democratic model, based on checks and balances and a thriving civil society, and has pledged to create an “illiberal state” modeled on countries such as Russia or Turkey.

OSF, which is active globally, established its first office abroad in Budapest in 1984 to support the democratization of the then still communist country. The charity is the main conduit for aid to more than 60 Hungarian NGOs and has spent more than $1.6 billion on democratic development in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the past 30 years."

Man, this is big scale stuff, not 'grass roots'!

How Soros helped the Nazis and declares he has no regrets

Kroft (Interviewer):
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews... And you [Soros] watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

Full relevant Kroft-Soros dialogue on Soros helping Nazis

KROFT: You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian, right? And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps, right?
SOROS: I was 14 years old and I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
SOROS: That one should think ahead, that one should understand and anticipate events and one, one is threatened - it was a tremendous threat of evil - I mean it was a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson
SOROS: (nods) Yes, yes.
KROFT: Went out in fact and helped in the confiscation of property from the jews?
SOROS: That's right.
KROFT: That sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: No. Not at all. Not at all. Mabye as a child, you don't see the connection, but it created no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, "I'm Jewish and here I am watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there. None of that?
SOROS: Well, of course, I could be on the other side. I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I should[n't] be there, because that was, well actually, funny way, it's just like in markets, that if I weren't there, if I wasn't doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow, and it was whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Analysis

The way that Soros analogises the luck of the draw in Jews' fates under the Nazis to the stock market is particularly interesting. One wonders if that is how he justifies the way he behaves himself on the stock market and when speculating on currency: "If I don't do it, someone else will." The assumption here seems to be that in all systems personal advantage will always outplay tit for tat (social cooperation). This seems especially amoral and antisocial, a kind of doctrine that might find justification in Thatcher's 'There is no society' and in Ayn Rand's work, which glorifies businessmen and damns those who lack their 'courage'.

Another candobetter writer comments,

"There is an interesting rigidity of thought and passivity here. It is as though he were an actor in a play rather than a real person who can decide one way or the other or change anything. Maybe the fact that he was placed in that position as a fourteen year old has had an effect that he does not recognise. Had he been a bit older he may have felt more power in the situation and not seen himself as just acting in a pre-set role.

This seems to have set him on a path and give him an unchanging perspective. I think more normal people re-assess things from time to time.

He has adopted what one could call an amoral approach (and I'm only going on the dialogue above). Nothing has any value and we choose the role we want out of what is on offer. Does he act out of anything but self interest?

In Sartrian terms - he could be said to be acting in bad faith i.e he is in fact free to choose more than he admits to. He was not able to change what was going on in Europe when he was 14 but he could have made other riskier , more heroic choices.

Maybe he has difficulty discriminating between the world he inhabits as created by humans and the actual physical world. He perhaps sees them both as immutable."

Here is a sanitised history of George Soros, that portrays him heroically as a businessman with an economics degree and a philanthropist.

Why do I have it in for George Soros? Because I see him funding undeclared political movements to pretend they are representing democracy, when in fact they are perverting it. The huge sums of money behind these pseudo grass roots movements mean that real democracy has no chance at all. These movements draw people in and waste their time and energy, whilst they actually bolster mainstream politics in the sense that identity politics which (largely helped by Soros' money) have now taken over the Labor Party and the Greens. I am amazed that people fall for it, but find some explanation in the concept of 'slactivism'. Being able to click on a link to save the world is a comfort when you are time poor. So maybe it's just that Moveon.org and GetUp and all the other ones are as convenient as television or fast food, and we are so atomised that people just don't know what else to do.