How did George Soros become such a boogeyman to racists?
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry, did you say RT attacks Soros because they object to inciting violently revolutions against democratically elected governments?
LOL, that isn't so much the pot calling the kettle black as the festering tar pit calling the kettle black.
Funding BLM isn't a bad thing, it's a noble thing. BLM has done so much to raise awareness and help the cause of social justice.
I was expecting your answer to be about his currency speculation and Krugman's criticism of him. Honestly, this sounds kind of crazy and I'm not sure where you're coming from. Anti black male? I don't understand.
When did this globalist shit started and why. Is this due to growing nationalism that has been going on because of stuff like brexit and trump. As well as the immigration stuff. Because i doubt they know how they lives are better because of globalization.
Soros is simultaneously an anti-Semite who wants to Islamify Israel and a rabid Zionist who is trying to bring all the goyim under the heel of Jewish domination.
It's folks who are upset that the world is becoming more connected but don't understand why. Instead of identifying that trade and mass communication bring countries closer together, the far right believes there's a "globalist conspiracy" of Jews or Illuminati who want to undermine nationalist causes and rule the world.
It's a pretty nutty fringe conspiracy theory that BLM is secretly anti-black. It has no basis in reality.
Ordinaryundone
Member
He's basically been the left-wing equivalent of the Koch bros. when it comes to conspiracy theories for a long time. Being super-rich and politically active/outspoken will get you that. He's also technically (aka non-practicing) Jewish which feeds the flames for all the Jewish NWO/Illuminati crowd.
alleyezonme
Banned
Yup they sure have , makes no sense why some civil rights activist in ferguson dislike them and Soros.
Jewish financer who has been critical of Israel. Makes him a uniting factor for the anti-semetic wing of Trump supporters and with those who hold extreme pro-Israel views.
Macadinho94
Member
Ireland's in the middle of a societal debate on abortion and the anti-abortionists always list his name as an outside influencer in the debate.
Though it's hilarious because the anti-abortion organisations like the Iona Institute and Youth Defence get the vast amount of their funding from US right wing anti abortion groups. It's hard to have a civilised debate when this shit gets thrown at the pro-choice movement all the time.
Though it's hilarious because the anti-abortion organisations like the Iona Institute and Youth Defence get the vast amount of their funding from US right wing anti abortion groups. It's hard to have a civilised debate when this shit gets thrown at the pro-choice movement all the time.
_/¯I assume it's to do with the looting and violence that follows them. I'm mostly ignorant about this but that seems to be the common criticism though part of that seems to overlap withsjw haters and kind of people that say they are color blind.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Wait, so why don't you like him? I'm confused. Influence?
I think it's a mish-mash of fears and conspiracy theories along the lines of secretive elites trying to instate a one world government, open borders mass immigration to weaken national cohesion in order to easily control the people, rich people wanting super cheap labor, stuff like that.
You'd be surprised by how many people think there's a powerful cabal of (((globalists))) or whatever working in unison to replace whites with a mixed brown slave race that is dumb and easier to control because OF COURSE THEY ARE
This I really want to see because dear god if they're any dumber than the idiots who fall for these conspiracies we're going into singularity material!
yanipheonu
Member
Feels like another mutation of the whole anti-immigrant idea.
A poor uneducated white guy sees the increase in world trade, doesn't see it positively affect their lives, and assumes it means some global conspiracy against them.
The key point is, despite the utterly illogical reaction, it represents a government's failure to spread the wealth and benefits of globalism to its poorer citizens. The success of globalism, free trade and immigration has much to do with the success of the respective governments involved to pass those boons onto its people. And I'm not sure they've done so very well in many cases.
It's not hard to see how a poor white guy who continues to be poor despite the supposed benefits of new trade agreements and immigration would reach that conclusion, even if it's not based in truth.
Of course, I'd argue the benefits still outweigh the faults. We haven't had a world war in while. And well, even if the boons at not obvious they're there if you're educated in them.
Well isn't that obvious dark skin fellas are such sheeps.
Same people who believe the UN has as much power as they think it does.
exmachina64
Banned
"Sovereignty."
Aka white nationalism.
You mean globalization; globalism refers to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
It started here.
This seems like the same reason Brexit occurs where the people voters see EU as some sort of overlords but doesn't realize how even with it's faults there are better off in EU because at least they get a say in it than outside. Though according to what i heard the right wing parties like UKIP is at fault for this.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Exclude RT from my argument. RT or not, he is responsible for major violent revolutions with catastrophic outcomes for the population of those countries. Almost all the countries subjected to "color" revolutions returned to parties that whose downfall he funded directly through OSF.
Other nations have brown people in them.
¡HarlequinPanic!
Member
I imagine the prequel trilogy has a lot to do with it.
That's merely local politicians having PR problems, they're doing a shit job but it's never their fault so they blame the EU (even when they're the one making the EU regulations).
When you have Sarkozy blaming the EU for all the ills in France when the guy is responsible for these regulations and even went against a referendum.
So he has the same powers as Obama does according to the right? I mean in the same breath they would call Obama both a tyrant and a weak spined, pushover pussy.
hydrophilic attack
Member
It seems be very widespread too.
Last week I got into a discussion here in Sweden with an Iranian coworker. And I don't remember how, but we got into the subject of the Syrian conflict, and how it had been covered by the western press. He was of the opinion that the press had failed to cover the issue from every angle, especially at the start, by painting the conflict between Assad and rebels as black and white (I think he thinks that from the very start, a large part of the rebels were acting in Arab interests, I can't really comment on this because I don't know the details). And I was willing to give him that (especially considering how much of the US press was cheerleading the Iraqi war) sometimes the press comes short of its goal to report the truth due to general incompetence, lack of information, and possibly even fear of losing access to the people they are covering.
But he wanted to go much further. According to him, the press in every country has an implicit and somehow deliberate bias to further the interests of their own country. Just like how Putin-controlled RT pushes the Russian agenda, so too does the NYT and Washington Post push the agenda of the US agenda. Proof? The newspapers endorsed Clinton. The US press has silenced and covered up (yes really) the Clinton email scandal.
I asked him through which mechanisms the US press would get their marching order to the press (that are independently owned with independent publishers that do their best to follow press ethics). And his response was basically follow the money. Apparently, the press gets their funding from foundations and grants which in turn were funded by American millionaires and the press knows that they need to please their masters. He explicitly named Soros.
So TLDR: my (rather liberal) Iranian coworker here in Sweden is convinced that people like Soros bankroll most of the American press. They know that Trump would be harmful to their interests and also for some reason they have identified that Syrian regime change is in their interest. Therefore Soros et al. have instructed the press to do whatever they can to get Clinton elected and to report inaccurately about Syria
Last week I got into a discussion here in Sweden with an Iranian coworker. And I don't remember how, but we got into the subject of the Syrian conflict, and how it had been covered by the western press. He was of the opinion that the press had failed to cover the issue from every angle, especially at the start, by painting the conflict between Assad and rebels as black and white (I think he thinks that from the very start, a large part of the rebels were acting in Arab interests, I can't really comment on this because I don't know the details). And I was willing to give him that (especially considering how much of the US press was cheerleading the Iraqi war) sometimes the press comes short of its goal to report the truth due to general incompetence, lack of information, and possibly even fear of losing access to the people they are covering.
But he wanted to go much further. According to him, the press in every country has an implicit and somehow deliberate bias to further the interests of their own country. Just like how Putin-controlled RT pushes the Russian agenda, so too does the NYT and Washington Post push the agenda of the US agenda. Proof? The newspapers endorsed Clinton. The US press has silenced and covered up (yes really) the Clinton email scandal.
I asked him through which mechanisms the US press would get their marching order to the press (that are independently owned with independent publishers that do their best to follow press ethics). And his response was basically follow the money. Apparently, the press gets their funding from foundations and grants which in turn were funded by American millionaires and the press knows that they need to please their masters. He explicitly named Soros.
So TLDR: my (rather liberal) Iranian coworker here in Sweden is convinced that people like Soros bankroll most of the American press. They know that Trump would be harmful to their interests and also for some reason they have identified that Syrian regime change is in their interest. Therefore Soros et al. have instructed the press to do whatever they can to get Clinton elected and to report inaccurately about Syria
This is problem with conspiracy shit there is some good points that get caught with sensationalism. He has a point though with newspaper from different countries will have their own biases and views on global events. They also want those clicks and views. I doubt there is some huge conspiracy rather than people being people.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
He's consistently in the top 5 or top 10 of democratic party donors. He's quite vocally leftist. That means he's spent a long time in the follow-the-money spotlight for the nuts who need a grand conspiracy to rationalize away why everybody is brainwashed by the system, which is the only thing that prevents them from becoming evil racist psychos, obviously.
He's a moneybags boogeyman, the same way the Kochs are for democrats.
He's a moneybags boogeyman, the same way the Kochs are for democrats.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
I've heard the idea that Brexit is good for the traditional working classes because globalization and the resulting free trade, greater economic links between countries and immigration had ruined their lives and they've only got poorer whilst the rich got richer and leaving the EU would be a blow against the 'big corporations' and the 'globalist elite' repeated constantly. The nationalism unleashed by the Brexit vote is by and large a desperate pushback against these inevitable forces.
What they fail to realize is that they've handed the power over to the far right lunatic fringes of the previously relatively centrist Conservative party and they hold the reins of our essentially one party state now. And traditional working class jobs, are, in my view largely on the way out anyway. There is no market for unskilled work in Europe anymore. And their woes are the fault of many governments who failed over and over again to distribute that new wealth and prosperity more evenly. Investment in retraining is what's needed as well.
What they fail to realize is that they've handed the power over to the far right lunatic fringes of the previously relatively centrist Conservative party and they hold the reins of our essentially one party state now. And traditional working class jobs, are, in my view largely on the way out anyway. There is no market for unskilled work in Europe anymore. And their woes are the fault of many governments who failed over and over again to distribute that new wealth and prosperity more evenly. Investment in retraining is what's needed as well.
Fucking neo-nazis.
I think generally these are different groups. The far-right will say that the government is tyrannical, while Obama is just a puppet of the Jews/bankers/Illuminati.
The far left still hates him due to his staunch anti-socialism and supposed corruption of left-wing movements.
The leftist case against Soros is that he's a ruthless businessman who uses progressivism to soothe his conscience. The rightist case against Soros is that he's a clever businessman who uses finance to gain enough influence to undermine Western civilization.
- Status