Michael Stuart Kelly

Coalitions for Anti-Capitalism - Left, Soros and Islamism

Recommended Posts

William,

The mass persuasion process works the same irrespective of whether it is for good or bad. You have 3 main elements that must be present in the masses. These work really well in sequence (like at large political gatherings), but they need to be maintained, so they also run in parallel. Also, each has its own parts--even when all three are flowing in an overall meta-sequence

1. Bonding.

2. Excitement.

3. Call to commitment.

There are many ways of carrying out each element. I find the Iranian film is already an Element 3 piece, but Element 3 well after the new regime is in place. If they released it at the beginning, it would not have worked. The people need to already feel common unity ("us against them") and be excited (usually fearful and with rage toward a scapegoat) before being called on to rat on each other (call to commitment, sacred oath, joining a march, or whatever form it takes).

Incidentally, these phases work on large masses, not on 100% of the population. In the case of Iran, there are people doing the Element 1 and Element 2, and even some Element 3 stuff regularly from the other end. Thus you have two opposing forces both using the same persuasion techniques.

Do you remember Elsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead making all those committees? This was an example of "community organizing." Rand knew about this stuff from the way the communists did it. She is even on record in one of her letters saying she was trained by the masters in propaganda.

Or, look at the best traditions of Edward Bernays's "public relations" efforts (which he originally called "propaganda" until that name became negative from the way the Nazis used it). His stunts are legendary and he even helped toppled a country (Guatemala) like that.

The founding of endless organizations, institutions, focus groups, action committees, leagues, associations, and what have you usually kick off the bonding phase. The more successful ones later become channels through which funds, resources, plans and information flow.

You can now add Internet social networking to the mix. Best of all, Internet stuff is practically free! That means the masters of persuasion techniques have a clear path to do what they do best without worrying about pesky things like where to meet, printing out materials, etc., at the start.

Regimes in power are slow to see this since they are busy with murder, mayhem and plunder, but I bet you China has not been so slow. I need to look it up, but social networking--and spying on social networks--is right up their ally. I refer to the regime, not the people in general.

Getting back to the ad hoc and specialized groups, they also start creating public perception, granting legitimacy and authority to the ideas they promote. Their purpose is to create a background before an idea is acted on. If you act on an idea without setting up a proper background, it will fizzle.

As to the good Soros has done, you mentioned some of the countries. But there's a context we have to keep in mind. It is important to recognize another 3 act play for replacing regimes (good, bad or otherwise).

1. Topple the present regime.

2. Confusion and crossed efforts.

3. Installation of a new regime.

Someone who works well at toppling a regime may not work well in administrating a country. Also, the nature of toppling a regime usually involves alliances between different groups that usually want to become the new regime. They usually do each other dirty in Act 2 and have outright open hostilities in Act 3, when one starts emerging as the new regime (to be toppled by the losers).

So it is entirely possible for someone to be a good guy in Act 1 and the bad guy in Act 2 or Act 3.

Soros was really good at toppling regimes. When he gets near seats of power, though, he does a lot of monkey-business with the money and literally wrecks lives. Don't forget another point. A person who is good at toppling bad guys is also good at toppling good guys if such be in his interests. If you think "grand humanitarian" as the force driving Soros, you will not see consistency in his acts. If you think "money and backstage power," everything he does is consistent. Look with that lens and see what you find.

I am speaking of the fundamental drive, not secondary drives or rhetoric. It's entirely possible to be driven by money and power, but also be a "grand humanitarian" as a secondary priority, especially since it makes for great rhetoric.

As to the 3 acts, notice that they all need mass persuasion to succeed, specifically:

1. Enough people must be persuaded to topple the regime.

2. During the confusion, enough people need to be persuaded to make sure a hole stays open for a group to make a power play.

3. Enough people must be persuaded to leave the new regime in power long enough for the foundation to settle beyond the tipping point.

So all 3 acts will use all the tricks from the bonding, excitement, call to commitment formula. It should be no surprise to see a group act one way in Act 1, but the contrary in Act 3. These acts are like 3 different games, each with its own rules.

This is a very gross and incomplete overview of a very large discussion.

These are merely some of the fundamental pieces I have learned so far. Believe it or not, I did not get these two outlines from Beck. I got them from looking at a lot of differint works on persuasion (and I feel I have only scratched the surface). But I have gotten a lot of ideas from Beck that wed perfectly with them.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

The mass persuasion process works the same irrespective of whether it is for good or bad. You have 3 main elements that must be present in the masses. These work really well in sequence (like at large political gatherings), but they need to be maintained, so they also run in parallel. Also, each has its own parts--even when all three are flowing in an overall meta-sequence

1. Bonding.

2. Excitement.

3. Call to commitment.

There are many ways of carrying out each element. I find the Iranian film is already an Element 3 piece, but Element 3 well after the new regime is in place. If they released it at the beginning, it would not have worked. The people need to already feel common unity ("us against them") and be excited (usually fearful and with rage toward a scapegoat) before being called on to rat on each other (call to commitment, sacred oath, joining a march, or whatever form it takes).

Incidentally, these phases work on large masses, not on 100% of the population. In the case of Iran, there are people doing the Element 1 and Element 2, and even some Element 3 stuff regularly from the other end. Thus you have two opposing forces both using the same persuasion techniques.

Do you remember Elsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead making all those committees? This was an example of "community organizing." Rand knew about this stuff from the way the communists did it. She is even on record in one of her letters saying she was trained by the masters in propaganda.

Or, look at the best traditions of Edward Bernays's "public relations" efforts (which he originally called "propaganda" until that name became negative from the way the Nazis used it). His stunts are legendary and he even helped toppled a country (Guatemala) like that.

The founding of endless organizations, institutions, focus groups, action committees, leagues, associations, and what have you usually kick off the bonding phase. The more successful ones later become channels through which funds, resources, plans and information flow.

You can now add Internet social networking to the mix. Best of all, Internet stuff is practically free! That means the masters of persuasion techniques have a clear path to do what they do best without worrying about pesky things like where to meet, printing out materials, etc., at the start.

Regimes in power are slow to see this since they are busy with murder, mayhem and plunder, but I bet you China has not been so slow. I need to look it up, but social networking--and spying on social networks--is right up their ally. I refer to the regime, not the people in general.

Getting back to the ad hoc and specialized groups, they also start creating public perception, granting legitimacy and authority to the ideas they promote. Their purpose is to create a background before an idea is acted on. If you act on an idea without setting up a proper background, it will fizzle.

As to the good Soros has done, you mentioned some of the countries. But there's a context we have to keep in mind. It is important to recognize another 3 act play for replacing regimes (good, bad or otherwise).

1. Topple the present regime.

2. Confusion and crossed efforts.

3. Installation of a new regime.

Someone who works well at toppling a regime may not work well in administrating a country. Also, the nature of toppling a regime usually involves alliances between different groups that usually want to become the new regime. They usually do each other dirty in Act 2 and have outright open hostilities in Act 3, when one starts emerging as the new regime (to be toppled by the losers).

So it is entirely possible for someone to be a good guy in Act 1 and the bad guy in Act 2 or Act 3.

Soros was really good at toppling regimes. When he gets near seats of power, though, he does a lot of monkey-business with the money and literally wrecks lives. Don't forget another point. A person who is good at toppling bad guys is also good at toppling good guys if such be in his interests. If you think "grand humanitarian" as the force driving Soros, you will not see consistency in his acts. If you think "money and backstage power," everything he does is consistent. Look with that lens and see what you find.

I am speaking of the fundamental drive, not secondary drives or rhetoric. It's entirely possible to be driven by money and power, but also be a "grand humanitarian" as a secondary priority, especially since it makes for great rhetoric.

As to the 3 acts, notice that they all need mass persuasion to succeed, specifically:

1. Enough people must be persuaded to topple the regime.

2. During the confusion, enough people need to be persuaded to make sure a hole stays open for a group to make a power play.

3. Enough people must be persuaded to leave the new regime in power long enough for the foundation to settle beyond the tipping point.

So all 3 acts will use all the tricks from the bonding, excitement, call to commitment formula. It should be no surprise to see a group act one way in Act 1, but the contrary in Act 3. These acts are like 3 different games, each with its own rules.

This is a very gross and incomplete overview of a very large discussion.

These are merely some of the fundamental pieces I have learned so far. Believe it or not, I did not get these two outlines from Beck. I got them from looking at a lot of differint works on persuasion (and I feel I have only scratched the surface). But I have gotten a lot of ideas from Beck that wed perfectly with them.

Michael

But Michael, these patterns have re-occurred throughout history in various ways long before Beck or Soros or America existed. Anyone could say "there must have been Omniscient Manipulators at work" and how could it be disproved? It's like looking at the world and saying there must be a God, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daunce,

20-20 hindsight is a great boon to the viewer, is it not?

Human behavior patterns, of course, existed since human being came into existence. Those who study and manipulate them as formal techniques is a more recent phenomenon. But even so, we have had a few master formaizers from the past, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli come to mind. Large religions have been pretty good, too. In older times, though, manipulators were naturals at it or they fell by the wayside. Nowadays you can study it, practice the techniques and--depending on your level of ruthlessness--even if you are the nerdiest of nerds, you can attain rock-star cult status if you want.

One of the reasons I mentioned this is because someone like Soros is an enigma. Sometimes he does good and sometimes he does evil. The people who like him and those who hate him aren't any help, though. They always want the whole enchilada. Soros is either a saint or devil. I find that useless to understanding.

But if you look at the mega patterns I mentioned, you can notice that when he is at one place, he does good, and when he is at another, he does bad. Once you corroborate this by looking at more of his acts, it allows you to look for the whys, especially since hardly anyone who manipulates masses on his scale is forthcoming about the reality of his motives. (He slips at times, though, especially when it goes to his head and he starts bragging about how good it feels to play God.)

But even Soros's motives are not all that interesting if trashing him (or exalting him) is the only aim. What is interesting is to be able to protect your values when he does his bad stuff. If you know where he is coming from and why, you can take effective steps to block him. If you don't, you take what you get. This is one man who is hell-bent on seeing you get something (including death at times), so you don't really have a choice about that part. You only have a choice about letting him get away with it or not.

He's got a gazillion organizations he funds.

If you want a pretty good "one stop shop" for an overview of human manipulation techniques, going all the way from simple sales techniques all the way up to Hitler's massive rallies, NLP, shopping mall atmospherics, public relations, interrogation techniques, etc., I highly recommend Coercion by Douglas Rushkoff.

That might help you see where I am coming from. But there are other great books on persuasion I can recommend if you become interested.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, where is the boy President of the US on Iran's democracy protesters today?

I will post a round-up of stories later today on the 'Signs' thread, but at the risk of further hijacking Michal's Soros/Leftist/Islamist Coalition thread, here's a headline and snippet from Britain's Independent (such a crazy juxtaposition of Iranian parliamentarians demanding the noose for 'democrats' and the Open Society that Soros claims to work for. Some revolutions eat their children; some do not. How to tell the difference?):

Iran: MPs demand execution of opposition leaders

Conservative Iranian parliamentarians yesterday called for the country's main opposition leaders to be put to death after protests in Tehran in solidarity with the revolt in Egypt.

About 50 marched through the central hall of parliament waving their fists and chanting: "Death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami."

Police had blocked the roads leading to the houses of Mir Hussain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who had disputed the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when they attempted to join the marches.

The former president Mohammed Khatami had incurred the anger of the theocratic faction for proposing reforms. According to one opposition MP, two demonstrators died in clashes with security forces in Tehran. There were also reports of marches in Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz.

The show of support for the theocratic state was followed by a statement issued by 221 MPs stating: "We believe the people have lost their patience and demand capital punishment".

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, accused the Iranian regime of "shameful hypocrisy" in praising the protests in Cairo while suppressing similar discontent at home.

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated the protesters "deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt and are part of their own birthright".

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, claimed the comments amounted to "meddling" in Iranian affairs. The Shia Tehran regime had welcomed the upheavals in Sunni Tunisia and Egypt as "Islamic awakening" while describing home-grown opposition in the streets as "political moves."

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William:

I heard his press conference.

Are you equating this statement to his statements on Egypt?

Secondly, he made no statement about Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, etc.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the latest Glenn Beck Show.

He gives a different take on Google's involvement in these things.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5p2P_Ko-Sko?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Glenn did not talk about Wael Ghonim, but in the interview with him by Mona El Shazly posted above, there is something that tickles my antenna (and did so the first time I heard it). This could be nothing, but it sounds way off to me.

Ghonim was highly emotional about being called a traitor and emphasized over and over that he was not a traitor. He even said it hurt him more to be called a traitor by an officer of the Egyptian security forces (apparently a jail officer, but he did not specify) than the "hard time" the security forces inflicted on his own mother and father.

It hurt him more?

Granted, this statement isn't enough to come to a conclusion other than it sounds weird. But if the young man had contempt for those in power (and rightly so, I might add), then what should he care what an officer of the security forces of that corrupt regime calls him? And even if he didn't like it as a normal personality trait, he displayed a whooooooooole lot of not liking it, tears and all.

Second thoughts, maybe?...

Michael

Context, I think. He is just out of prison, unfed apparently, possibly in some degree of clinical shock. The risks he ran were all for the ideals of loyalty to his country and the rights of its citizens. That subsumed everything. The suggestion of treason from any source would touch off such an emotional obsessiveness, and Arabs are not afraid of emotionalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be sure without looking for stuff I don't want to spend time on right now, but I will venture an opinion about Soros and Iran.

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA. I don't think he gives two hoots about Iran at this moment. He's hunting bigger game. Since the influence of the USA in Iran is negligible (as compared to a country like Egypt), I don't believe he is interested in funding a revolution there.

I do believe he will be interested if he gets his wish and the USA government melts down.

It's because of the Act 1 and Act 3 scenarios I mentioned above. Act 1 is about taking out a regime. Act 3 is about establishing a new one. I think Soros imagines Iran as something he can deal with in his Act 3 scenario with the USA.

All 3 main anti-USA interests (Soros, the Left and the Islamists) are still in Act 1, so they are either supporting each other or indifferent to each other. Act 3 is when they will be at each other's throats. They all preach a new world order as the solution to talking out the evil USA empire, but each one imagines it will be the one pulling the strings in that new world.

Obama seems to reflect this same attitude with respect to Iran.

Like I said, this is just an opinion, but it seems reasonable enough at this point.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't be sure without looking for stuff I don't want to spend time on right now, but I will venture an opinion about Soros and Iran.

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Without checking the 'stuff,' I won't venture an opinion about Soros being 'on record' seeking to 'take down the USA.'

I will continue to fact-check these claims: that Soros helped fund the ‘Velvet Revolution’ in the Czech Republic, the “Orange Revolution” in the Ukraine, the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia --and that he also helped to engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia and Yugoslavia. I may report on what I find later, but I doubt there will be any interest.

Just wondering -- has anyone reading this thread ever read any of Soros's books? I am starting his 'Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterpirse And Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Carol:

Soros is "spooky dude" which is what Glenn Beck calls Soros.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Carol:

Soros is "spooky dude" which is what Glenn Beck calls Soros.

Adam

No, I got that. I asked about "like an ex-Nazi", your own comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Carol:

Soros is "spooky dude" which is what Glenn Beck calls Soros.

Adam

No, I got that. I asked about "like an ex-Nazi", your own comment.

Carol:

No, I am not free from sin to throw those stones. I thought folks were familiar with the story. It comes from the following stories about Soros when the Nazi's took over Hungary when he was fourteen years old:

Soros alleged to have collaborated with the Nazis

"Originally from Hungary there are many theories about George Soros being a Nazi Collaborator. The charges have their origin in the story that he actually supported Nazis by helping them confiscate the properties of his fellow countrymen. George Soros was only 14 years old when the invasion took place. Unripe mind of 14 had deep scars from the incidents occurring all around him. The people against him blame that that exactly was the situation which taught him the lessons of gambling. To take positions secretly, without ever considering others. He is also blamed as being against Jewish state of Israel and actually been supporting Hamas!

As he heavily funded Anti-Bush element in 2004 elections, he is even blamed to have funded Islamic terrorists.

On the other hand supporters of George Soros argue that he was just a child of 14 years and was just following his survival instincts by following the orders of Nazis."

Another take on that period is the following:

"SURVIVING NAZISM AND COMMUNISM Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1930 and survived the Holocaust despite the German occupation of his country in the spring of 1944. His father, Tivadar, a Jewish attorney, had already survived one deportation as a prisoner in Russia during the Russian Revolution. To avoid the Nazis as they gathered up Jews and deported them to concentration camps, Tividar bought false identity papers for his family members, who then separated and went into hiding.

Soros, then fourteen years old, helped his father formulate thousands of fake documents for many of their fleeing countrymen. Soros remembered that his father would provide free documents for people he knew or who were in immediate danger, would request money only to cover his expenses from people whom he felt a moral obligation to help, and would ask for as much money as the wealthy could afford. Soros reflected on his father's honesty during the Holocaust, but he also remembered the number of laws his father had to break in order to provide safety for his family and countrymen. Soros learned the art of survival from his father, and he came out of the experience resolved to be undaunted by challenges."

Read more: George Soros 1930— Biography - Surviving nazism and communism, Early education and development, The quantum fund, The philanthropist http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/S-Z/Soros-George-1930.html#ixzz1E5wP7rfj

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Carol:

Soros is "spooky dude" which is what Glenn Beck calls Soros.

Adam

No, I got that. I asked about "like an ex-Nazi", your own comment.

Carol:

No, I am not free from sin to throw those stones. I thought folks were familiar with the story. It comes from the following stories about Soros when the Nazi's took over Hungary when he was fourteen years old:

Soros alleged to have collaborated with the Nazis

"Originally from Hungary there are many theories about George Soros being a Nazi Collaborator. The charges have their origin in the story that he actually supported Nazis by helping them confiscate the properties of his fellow countrymen. George Soros was only 14 years old when the invasion took place. Unripe mind of 14 had deep scars from the incidents occurring all around him. The people against him blame that that exactly was the situation which taught him the lessons of gambling. To take positions secretly, without ever considering others. He is also blamed as being against Jewish state of Israel and actually been supporting Hamas!

As he heavily funded Anti-Bush element in 2004 elections, he is even blamed to have funded Islamic terrorists.

On the other hand supporters of George Soros argue that he was just a child of 14 years and was just following his survival instincts by following the orders of Nazis."

From what original source is this story so badly translated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Feb. 2 2007

Interview with Soros Partial Transcript

Who Is George Soros?

By Marc Schulman In The New Republic, Martin Peretz relates this comment by Democratic party bank roller George Soros, as reported in the New York Times' online "Davos Diary":

America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process.

No, says Peretz, "you are not seeing things. He said de-Nazification. He is not saying, in the traditional manner of liberal alarmists, that the United States is now where Weimar Germany was. He is saying that the United States is now where Germany after Weimar was . . . In the old days, the Amerika view of America was propagated by angry kids on their painful way to adulthood; now, it is propagated by the Maecenas of the Democratic Party."

After noting that "nobody seems to have noticed" Soros' remark, Pertz adds:

Imagine the outcry if Republican moneybags . . . had declared that Hillary Clinton is a communist or that Bill Clinton's America had been in need of a certain de-Stalinization process. But I hear no outcry from Soros's congregation . . . There seems to be a renaissance among liberals of the view that there are no enemies to the left. I hear no Democrats expressing embarrassment, or revulsion, at Soros's comment. Whether this silence is owed to their agreement or to their greed, it is outrageous.

Now comes Peretz's coup de grace. On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes":

Kroft: "You're a Hungarian Jew …"

Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... who escaped the Holocaust …"

Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... by posing as a Christian."

Soros: "Right."

Kroft: "And you 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."

Kroft: "In what way?"

Soros: "That one should think ahead. One should understand that—and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a—a very personal threat of evil."

Kroft: "My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."

Soros: "Yes, that's right. Yes."

Kroft: "I mean, that's—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?"

Soros: "Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't … you don't see the connection. But it was—it created no—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 these, I should be there.' None of that?"

Soros: "Well, of course, ... I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was—well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in the markets—that is I weren't there—of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would—would—would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the—I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Peretz's conclusion:

So this is the psychodrama that has been visited on American liberalism. We learn Soros never has nightmares. Had he been tried in a de-Nazification process for having been a young cog in the Hitlerite wheel, he would have felt that, since other people would have confiscated the same Jewish property and delivered the same deportation notices to the same doomed Jews, it was as if he hadn't done it himself. He sleeps well, while we sleep in Nazi America.

For my part, I imagine the following headline:

Major Democratic Party Contributor Exposed as Former Nazi Accomplice

I added this other link to a story in post #39 on this thread

George Soros 1930— Biography - Surviving nazism and communism, Early education and development, The quantum fund, The philanthropist http://www.reference...l#ixzz1E5wP7rfj

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second "take" on history, which you edited in after I asked my question, is so incompatible with the first that I can't perceive any reality in the middle.

Either the Nazis chose a 14-year-old Jewish boy as their henchman, or they didn't. He betrayed his "fellow citizens" and profited from their murders, or he didn't.

You quote the "stories" and indicate that you believe them based on the evidence you have. Is this so?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you have provided the middle with the Kroft interview. Clearly, Soros was never a Nazi, never turned in his fellow citizens for cash. That you would casually make such an allegation on a serious thread is shocking to me, frankly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first things I ever read about Soros was published in 2003 in Reason. Beck was still in rehab, Michael was still in Brazil, Adam was still in the penitentiary, and Carol Jane and I were still married and raising rabbits for food.

It was after Soros' interview with 60 Minutes -- in which he talked frankly about his experience as a teenage 'hidden Jew' in Budapest -- but before Ann Coulter called him a Nazi collaborator.

It's a good read, even if you hate Soros with every last fibre of your being. It puts some of the bizarre takes on Soros in perspective, whether the bizarreries emerge from the left (He's a capitalist arch-fiend), the right (He's a communist), the Iranians (He's a stooge of the CIA Imperialists), the non-Objectivish also-rans (He sold Jews to the Nazis), the Belorussians (He is an agent of the USA), or the Malaysians (He's a Zionist Moneylending Criminal).

If you would like a reasonably reasonable take on Soros, and the wackiness and rage Soros garnered before he turned into The Boogeyman, have a gander at the Reason article. I know reason is no substitute for addled speculation or frenzied denunciations, but it can still be fun to take a break from the Outer Limits, put a saddle on the hobby horse, and pause before dashing off in all directions.

If you are the kind of person who can draw a straight line from The Rothschilds to The Progressives to Timothy McVeigh without spilling your FourLoko, the Reason article is not recommended. You will have to buy a new box of crayons.

Here's a sample:

_____________________________________

<h2><a href='http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/08/open-season-on-open-society'>Open Season on 'Open Society'</a></h2> <h3>Why an anti-communist Holocaust survivor is being demonized as a Socialist, Self-hating Jew</h3>

<p class="byline"><span><a href="http://reason.com/people/matt-welch" rel="author">Matt Welch</a> | December 8, 2003</span></p>

<p>George Soros has a long and storied track record of being all villains to all people. Nobody that rich, and that meddlesome in international affairs—through his massive, market-influencing hedge-fund bets against national currencies, or via his multi-billion dollar "<a href="http://www.soros.org/">Open Society</a>" philanthropy in 50-plus countries—could avoid being fitted for devil's horns on a daily basis.</p>

<p>In the past 10 days alone the <a href="http://www.soros.org/about/bios/a_soros/">Karl Popper-influenced</a>, Hungarian-born American citizen has been accused by Russian Foreign Minister <a href="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/12/08/019.html">Igor Ivanov</a> and deposed Georgian President <a href="http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2003/12/01/51582.html">Eduard Shevardnadze</a> of directly engineering Georgia's "Rose Revolution"; <a href="http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2003/12/02/putting_tons_of_money_where_his_mouth_is?mode"> slammed</a> by bilious <em>Boston Globe</em> columnist Alex Beam as a "greater threat to democracy" than even (gasp!) Rupert Murdoch (in part, because of Soros' <a href="http://www.nationalfamilies.org/guide/gsoros.html">support</a> for medical-marijuana ballot initiatives in several states); cited in press reports as the main reason for drops in the <a href="http://www.thisismoney.com/20031201/nm71234.html">U.S. dollar</a> and <a href="http://www.sabcnews.com/economy/indicators/0,2172,70165,00.html">South African rand</a>; and <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/levich12062003.html">accused</a> by CounterPunch's Jacob Levich as willingly allowing his overseas NGOs to be "openly integrated into Washington's overall strategy for consolidating global supremacy."</p>

<p>The latter claim in particular would seem oddly dissonant behavior from a man who has just written a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586482173/reasonmagazineA/"> <em>The Bubble of American Supremacy</em></a> (an <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/soros.htm">excerpt</a> from which can be found in the December <em>Atlantic Monthly</em>), and who has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language"> donated</a> $15 million so far in a <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl">well publicized</a> effort to effect "regime change" on President George Bush, a man he calls "a danger to the world." But then, rationality has never been the high point of Soros' many detractors.</p>

<p>Until very recently, you could place most of Soros' fiercest critics in categories marked "paranoid" and "anti-democratic." In 1990s Central Europe, where he and his various organizations were ubiquitous presences (at least in the cosmopolitan capital cities), reaction to Soros was a useful if crude indicator of a politician's basic orientation. Vaclav Klaus' messy <a href="http://www.amcham.hu/BusinessHungary/15-10/articles/15-10_26.asp">early-1990s rejection</a> of Soros' plans to locate his independent Central European University in Prague was an important early omen that the West's favorite post-communist free marketeer would have an icy attitude toward <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl">Burke's "Little Platoons"</a>, should said platoons look large enough to threaten Klaus' own hold on power. Open Society Institutes were <a href="http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/10/F.RU.991020134118.html">forcibly shut down</a> by the thuggish governments of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Belarus, and singled out for abuse by brutish former Slovakia Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar.</p>

<p>But now, Slavic autocrats have been joined in red-faced George-bashing by two new overlapping groups: American conservatives, and hawkish friends of Israel. Ever since Soros began ladling out millions to the dump-Bush campaign, while larding his anti-administration rhetoric with inflammatory comparisons to Nazi Germany and Yasser Arafat, it has been open season on Open Society. Thus we now have the spectacle of one of the world's most active and influential anti-communists (not to mention one of its most successful capitalists) being tarred as a particularly dangerous friend of Marx and Lenin.</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you have provided the middle with the Kroft interview. Clearly, Soros was never a Nazi, never turned in his fellow citizens for cash. That you would casually make such an allegation on a serious thread is shocking to me, frankly.

Carol:

You are correct. Another person was just as shocked. It was way over the top. I let my emotions about him get in the way of accuracy. My apologies, but I do not like the man.

It was still a cheap shot.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros is on record that the big prize for him is to take down the USA.

Michael

Could you quote this record please? What a monumental ego he must have. He sounds crazy.

Carol:

Glenn Beck calls him the "spooky dude!" He is nice as an ex-Nazi who used to turn in his fellow citizens for cash.

Adam

Do you mean Soros here, or Beck?

Carol:

Soros is "spooky dude" which is what Glenn Beck calls Soros.

Adam

No, I got that. I asked about "like an ex-Nazi", your own comment.

Carol:

No, I am not free from sin to throw those stones. I thought folks were familiar with the story. It comes from the following stories about Soros when the Nazi's took over Hungary when he was fourteen years old:

Soros alleged to have collaborated with the Nazis

"Originally from Hungary there are many theories about George Soros being a Nazi Collaborator. The charges have their origin in the story that he actually supported Nazis by helping them confiscate the properties of his fellow countrymen. George Soros was only 14 years old when the invasion took place. Unripe mind of 14 had deep scars from the incidents occurring all around him. The people against him blame that that exactly was the situation which taught him the lessons of gambling. To take positions secretly, without ever considering others. He is also blamed as being against Jewish state of Israel and actually been supporting Hamas!

As he heavily funded Anti-Bush element in 2004 elections, he is even blamed to have funded Islamic terrorists.

On the other hand supporters of George Soros argue that he was just a child of 14 years and was just following his survival instincts by following the orders of Nazis."

From what original source is this story so badly translated?

I have clicked on your link to the source and I am none the wiser. It is "News Around the Globe", an anonymous website or blog, containing articles in English as a Second Language (my guess is the original would be Hindi or Urdu, but just a guess). The articles contain no quotes, no attribution, no facts as the ordinary reader could discern them, and have no bylines.

Is this one of your regular research sources, Adam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

No.

It was a quick search and the three that I posted ran the gamut.

Again, as I said, it was a cheap shot at Soros and I should not have posted it.

Adam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

No.

It was a quick search and the three that I posted ran the gamut.

Again, as I said, it was a cheap shot at Soros and I should not have posted it.

Adam.

I'm glad to hear the no. Since I can't even do slow searches much less quick ones it's kind of encouraging. Glad to be through the gamut now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck said that a 14 year old boy should not be held responsible for having to make a horrible choice. He does not blame Soros for that and does not think anyone else should.

However...

(drum roll)

Soros is on videotape talking about that time. He was 14 and accompanied Nazis confiscating the property of Jews. The Nazis did not know he was Jewish (this information was kept secret). Soros said that year was the happiest year of his life.

Watch the tape if anyone does not believe me.

A 14 year old boy should not be held responsible, but an old man can be held responsible. And should be.

I have a full thread on Soros where oodles of stuff can be seen right here in the Beck section. It's even pinned so it will stay on top. But here is the link anyway: An Open Soros for the Open Society. Go to Post 8 in that thread for the quickie version of Soros quotes.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck said [ . . . ]

My favourite line from the excerpt is "An eighty-year old man who never once said he regretted it."

Regretted it. What it?

He was 14 and accompanied Nazis confiscating the property of Jews.

I think Michael meant to write that Soros accompanied an official from the Ministry of Agriculture (whose Jewish wife was also in hiding) who had agreed to shelter young Soros as his 'godson' while the Soros family split up and went underground in Budapest, and that it was the 'godfather' who was ordered to inventory the property of a departed Jewish family who had left their estate to the Nazi occupiers in exchange for being allowed to escape to Portugal. A little wordy, sure, but perhaps more compelling and informative.

The Nazis did not know he was Jewish (this information was kept secret).

It's hard to fit in a bunch of facts in a quick post, so I am sure Michael meant to let readers know that the 'godfather' ordered by the Nazis to do the inventory actually did know Soros was Jewish -- which of course would be obvious once we have filled in a few trifling little details, like the fact that this man with a Jewish wife in hiding sheltered and protected Soros. I am sure a lot more things happened to Soros in the year he spent hiding out and dodging capture, but hey, we only have a little bit of story-telling time here.

Soros said that year was the happiest year of his life.

I think Michael probably meant to tell more about this year. You know, was the 'confiscation' at the Kornfeld estate a one time thing? What Kornfeld estate, you ask? Well, the empty estate containing valuable artworks, furniture and other properties that the Ministry official with the Jewish wife in hiding was ordered to inventory (did I already mention that Soros's father had arranged for the wife to be hidden? Ooops).

Why on earth would anyone want to know any details, really, though? I mean, does it matter what else happened that year to young George and his family? Did I mention that the inventory took three days? Did I mention that upon his return to Budapest a schoolchum in the street outside the 'godfather's apartment recognized the little Jew, and that Soros had to be hidden elsewhere immediately? What use would be that detail if we already kinda sorta almost are sure he spent a whole year with The Nazis?

Well, it could be that absent these trifling details some might think that Soros's entire year was spent heading out grinning with the Nazis every morning to confiscate items off Jews, and that Soros looked forward to it, and enjoyed posing as a Nazi himself.

Absent the trifling little details, a guy on TV can say this about George Soros: "He even had to go around confiscating property of Jewish people. He actually had to endure watching people sent off to their eventual murders, watching people gathering their stuff, sending them off knowing that they were going to go to their death."

Woo-hoo! I'm a fake Nazi on a Nazi job! Happy, happy, happy. Today we are confiscating property from Jews! Yeehaw! What a life. Tomorrow those Jews go to Dachau! Yippee. How do I know about Dachau in 1944? Oh, fuck off, quit wrecking my happiness. This is fun. I hope I get to go confiscate again. I could make this a regular gig. Maybe I will get to watch someone really torment some Jews! What a year!

But I digress. Michael didn't have time to put up trifling details, and doesn't think the young Soros should be held responsible for having to make a horrible choice.

Of course, this begs the question, what horrible choice?

It. The thing. Or the awful thing he did that the TV man says he never once regretted . . . Who knows?

Maybe choosing to be happy while evading Nazis and Dachau and the trains. Plausible? Nope, nobody is happy evading death. Could it be choosing to help his father? Maybe horribly choosing to go hide out as a Christian? No, that doesn't make sense -- he had no choice.

I suppose he could have chosen to go up to the nearest authority and say, "Hey fuckface, I am actually a Jew. My dad is a Jew, a famous Jew, but he changed his name and got papers for himself, my mom, me, my brother, my grandma and a bunch of other people. We are in hiding. What do you think of that, huh?"

Watch the tape if anyone does not believe

We'd like to get right on that. But, where is the tape, though? We have seen fourteen seconds or so, edited, on the cut above. My second favourite part is the little white flash of an edit just after Soros says 'happiest year of my life, the German occupation.' Flash. What did he say there? . . . I would like to see that tape and figure out what was missing.

Besides the unidentified 2002 tape played on the snippet above, has anyone watched the whole 1998 CBS tape? The rest of us reading here have only seen an edited transcript, as far as I know. Could there be more to the tape? Could there be two tapes? Could there be more to the story?

Did you see the words on the screen? 'Soros was in charge of confiscating the land of the Jews in Hungary."

I'm just asking questions here. I am not judging.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...