Nobs like knobs, or nobs like noobs?

A large chunk of the Soros hate can be traced right back to the seepage from LaRouche and co.

Boy! I sure love my billionaire globalist overlords! When they're not turning Jews over to Nazis, actively working to censor speech in Europe, and destabilizing at least a half-dozen countries on the state department's hit list, they talk about socialism, and give me pot!

Mr Bawbag - an even larger chunk can be traced back to the recent internal leaks which proved many of the claims about the OSF to be correct.

Broken clock, twice day, etc

[citation needed]

...but first state which claims are supposedly 'proved' by the leaks from Rus... anonymous hackers. I mean if you must do a bit, do it right, the hillary stuff earlier was not your best work.

Certainly:

http://soros.dcleaks.com/

I didn't really buy into the Soros stuff myself; I figured it was just Russians being sore losers. But, sadly, as it turns out, he really is just a Nazi-collaborating, corporatist asshole.

Nobs


8====DC===8

Sorry, baleen, you're once again stuck with me being the only one that watched it. I love you.

:(

He frames the problem as a problem of agency, or the origin from which we determine the ethics and morality of our society in contrast with capitalism. On the one hand, you have capitalist forces which are optimally amoral and merely supplies what is demanded by society. On the other, you have politics, which is by nature supposed to be a representation of our morality as a society. Somewhere along the way, what he calls "market fundamentalism" happened, which he defines as capitalists manipulating society's morals through politics to improve their bottom line. They found that market forces withstand social upheaval far more robustly than social forces withstand market upheaval, so they determined that their stability lies in manipulating society. This has had the further effect of making us all far more socially amoral and more tied to capitalism to determine the nature of our society.

Possible examples I thought of were Evangelical Christianity, and, of course, Citizens United.

He ties the process to special interests, lobbyists, and the general decline of public morality, as well as professions like medicine, journalism, and law becoming businesses first, professions second. While he himself uses words like "honesty" and "integrity" to define his morality, the mechanics, at least to me, of what he is saying would seem to work even if our morality was straight up social Darwinist cannibal Klingons. The market could influence us to weak Federation pacifism using the same methods as it does to war. The defining of the morals by the market is the problem, since the market does not thrive due to some morals over others, while human society does. So we rise and fall socially based on an amoral system that isn't suitable for defining our society, but does to suit its bottom line.

He points out that politicians are in a kind of bind, since they must represent the amoral and moral sectors of society. Once the market starts meddling in the morality, this becomes impossible for them and they become a part of the process of amorally determining our moral strata.

This is what he suggests :

That as individuals we separate our market interests from our political ones, and that we support politicians who do likewise. That if you are the NRA damned right you will lobby the government for guns for all, but in sectors of society that don't involve guns, you should use your money for the greater good. Not every social thing can possibly be against your market interests, as a selfish individual, so there is no contradiction.

He points out that when all money gets tied to all morality, capitalists find it far more satisfying to make money than spend it as a measure of success, since social standards swing wildly and what you support today may be evil tomorrow. It's easier to measure your success in money than morals. So by separating the two, saying you can't use money to improve society because freeloaders eat money and make colored babies is begging the question, because once the market interests are covered, you've paid your NRA dues, it's just a matter of improving society, not challenging your success by feeding moral competitors.

One of the ways he wants to get capitalism out of morality is by deregulation.

Here is why I think Republicans hate him :

They benefit out the ass from market fundamentalism, especially when they cater to a war religion that they can milk for cash, dead brown bodies, and dynastic wealth and power. They have done this by engineering a social morality that says success in capitalism means you literally own people, their lives, their time, and their deaths. They are your property. Capitalist morality at its optimum, we all seek each other for purchase and consumption.

Now what I don't understand is why the left likes him either, because the left also has zero will to separate capitalism from morality. That is the side that boycotts businesses, ties morality to food distribution, and thinks chaining themselves to trees challenges the voracious nature of humanity. They are so wrapped up in market fundamentalism all their plans to reform society involve marketing a better morality. In a real way, the adoption of New Atheism is a rejection of morality for market fundamentalism, as we've all given up on church and have taken to Yelp to voice our ethics towards the amoral market.

I think the left just likes him because the right doesn't.

My two cents.

I love you, baleen, I know I said it already but that was before I typed my bullshit.

Rather than link to all of the documents directly, here are a few articles. You might not like *the authors* very much, but they do link directly to the source documents themselves - and, I'm sure you'd agree, in cases like this, the journalist doesn't matter nearly as much as the documents do.

Funding dissidents, playing both sides, and involvement in color revolutions:
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08/george-soros-hacked-dissid ent-orgs-revealed.html
Attacking internet freedom:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/leaked-soros-document-calls- for-regulating-internet-to-favor-open-society-supporters/
Astroturfing BLM, and using civil disorder to push for greater state power:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-memo-blm-federalized-po lice/
Manipulating the media, such as in regards to the Ukraine and the migrant crisis:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-hacked-global-influence /


Also, what "Hillary stuff" did I do? If you have any question about specific I made in regards to Hillary, by all means, ask away. She's the dirtiest politician we've had on the ballot yet by a *significant* margin - and that's not me doing a bit, that's just reality.

lol

- I think the left just likes him because the right doesn't.


Yeah, that's how these things always work, sadly. That very sentence, Mr Dumspter, is going to be carved into the gravestone of our society.

Well, you've got the documents, Mr Bawbag. What you do with the information is up to you.

Hush, Homie, I'm seriously reconsidering my views of capitalism here. A critical thinker called out from deep space and circuits in my brain long dormant resonated in response : V'ger... creator... data ready to transmit...

I will play your game Mr. Evilhomer. Let us try to find a more corrupt presidential candidate. We will start from early on. I nominate Mr. Joseph Smith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

How sayeth thee to that messire?

You may refer to me as Mr. Prophet or Bongo

Wouldn't the solution lie in divorcing every aspect of life from the concept of it being a commodity as much as possible? Our use value as people is defined by increasingly worthless education due to the reserve army of the unemployed kept by top capitalists now. Everything or almost everything is being increasingly turned into a commodity under neoliberalism. I don't see Soros doing anything about that at all. Political science and economics used to be, back in the time of Adam Smith and Marx and Ricardo, one discipline called political economy. I don't think it's possible to separate our market interests from our political interests at all and to entertain the idea that we can is doing nothing more than tilting at windmills. Is it possible not to treat people and everything else under the sun as a commodity or an individual unit to be bought and sold? Yes, but I don't think Soros is even attempting to gesture in that direction.

So, tl;dr: I don't know why the left (maybe by left you mean liberals/centrists?) are into him either beyond him being a favorite bugbear of Libertarians and Republicans. I don't think the radical left admires him in any capacity.

It would help if I could glean an ideology from Soros beyond a neoliberal fantasy of a capitalist market economy somehow being efficient enough via a mental exercise to not result in wealth polarization and misery. I don't think that's possible, but I dunno, I'm into that Marxist shit.

"Is it possible not to treat people and everything else under the sun as a commodity or an individual unit to be bought and sold? Yes, but I don't think Soros is even attempting to gesture in that direction. "

Soros's brand of 'socialism' boils down to deindustrializing the west so that the developing world can have a crack at the jobs that used to sustain our working class. The exploitation of cheap foreign labor by multinational corporations is seen as a necessary step on the road to the borderless utopia that globalists like Soros cream their pants over. If the western working class is gutted in the meantime, then so be it. They had it too good.

Needless to say, this is not the kind of wealth transfer that the Bernie Bros were asking for.

Yeah, I found the level of his thinking great, but I'm not convinced by his argument either.

His suggestions fall into the "coulda woulda shoulda" loop.

We coulda woulda shoulda found politicians who endorse an amoral market separate from a moral society. He can give no example of such a creature.

Rich people coulda woulda shoulda been rapacious capitalists in their sectors and humanitarian in other sectors. This ignores class warfare entirely, which is being waged from the top down. Your humanitarian sector is another oligarch's slave pit, and if you want to be their friend, you don't free their cattle.

We coulda woulda shoulda not allowed capitalists to influence social morality. How does he know we're not an amoral society and this is what we demanded from capitalism to supply us?

He offers nothing we can get up in the morning and do, except look for the Golden Politician, which may not exist. We are to consume without politics from those who supply, even though he says they define our morality on purpose.

"Soros's brand of 'socialism' boils down to deindustrializing the west so that the developing world can have a crack at the jobs that used to sustain our working class."

That would fall in line with his separation of corp and society. He sees himself as helping the people of earth overall in a long game, which is great and not wrong, but he bankrolls it with the amoral business of fucking us, because that is what normal amoral rich people do in the 21st century, fuck Americans. We have nothing but our social morality to tell us capitalism is incorrect and his amorality towards wielding it on people at random as a targeted market parasite is evil.

He fails the shit out of his own philosophy by sacrificing our immediate suffering for long term idealism.

This happens every goddamned time in history when philosophers get into government. Every fucking time.

I do like the guy, but one might go as far as to say that he represents the very problem he his trying to solve.

I'm sure the Koch Brothers are just as morally driven as George Soros is. As was that 2000 year old institution who's name kept coming to mind during this lecture, The Catholic Church. This is why his colleagues are focusing on contracts and incentives: moral suasion proves a tricky cat to master. Not that we shouldn't consider other options. I think there are some, but they are so far off this guy's reservation it's hard to imagine him reaching the needed solutions.

>>>Sorry, baleen, you're once again stuck with me being the only one that watched it. I love you.

I didn't watch it, but I also love baleen.

Near as I can figure, the stupidly-Leftie Left can't stand Soros because he doesn't consider capitalism the enemy. They demand a villain; Soros doesn't hold that capitalism is a villain, any more than fire is a villain.

Of course, the stupidly-Leftie Left ought to remember that the first duty in a revolution is to not fraternize with the enemy, so if you truly think big corporations are the enemy, you'd best divest yourself of any of their poison fruit. Oh wait, big corporations produce goods that improve your quality of life? Can't have it both ways, either they're the enemy (and you're a collaborator) or considering them the "enemy" is too simplistic.

I can at least respect Soros' conclusion that, because capitalism is an amoral institution, we can't render it moral or count on the Invisible Hand to steer it to benevolent outcomes. And, his goal of putting up a wall between the functions of government (promoting societal values) and of capitalism (enriching the self) lends itself to good Leftie goals like taking money out of politics. Ironically he tries to use his money to influence politics, but he also seems to be trying to engender money-resistant political systems, so that's something.

Yeah, that's like the Al Gore can't use a jet to tell us about climate change argument, you're explicitly hating the sinner to implicitly approve of the sin. This is part of our actual social morality right now, sinner hating. This is what Soros was talking about when he mentioned the fall of ancient Christian values to be replaced by capitalist morality.

However, I don't mind the idea of a doublethink society if it actually works, we are the amoral moral consumer socialist capitalists. Sounds ideal with quantum supercake for all, which is the problem. We have mixed capitalism and government to the point where Soros is basically asking us to take paint that is red and green mixed together, put it on a brush, and then only paint red with it on a canvas. It's almost a word salad suggestion, like draining a lake to save someone from drowning, or looking for the face of the Buddha before he was born.

He is right though, the markets are more stable than society, so, inductively, it looks like we have no choice but to become a global, amoral, capitalist species, because capitalism will always be able to weather social moral opinion, whether it succeeds in defining it or not. It's a win-win mechanic.

"explicitly hating the sinner to implicitly approve of the sin"

Goddamn, well said.

Soros openly destroyed Britain's currency, said, "This is wrong," then proceeded to give the money away.

George Soros is kind of like what happens when Snowden and wikileaks actually get things done.

EvilHomer:

Soros is extremely politically active.
I don't trust a lot of "leak" sites mainly because they are now used as propaganda agencies. IPCC coverage of leaked e-mails did a good job of convincing me of that, as did Snowden when he sought refuge in horrible security states that use it to manipulate and confuse the public.

I do know George Soros from his political operations and his commentary on capitalism, which has far more influence than conspiracy theories about his status as illuminati. If you read publications like the Economist, you know that Soros is one of few of the top dogs that call for closer scrutiny and regulation of markets, of national wages and the inevitable end of capitalism. I don't give a fuck if he was involved in Ukraine. He's from Hungary, he saw the entire world abandon and isolate his nation. We decided to let Ukraine balkanize, and we seriously fucked up in the process.

He IS one of the major forces against the drug war and a source of funding behind medical marijuana and legalization efforts since the 1990s. You might think this is laughably marginal, but I don't. I think it's the beginning of a sea change in the way Americans view the drug war. Thanks, George!

memedumpster : thanks for love and for insight.

We have to separate Soros the economist/financier from Soros the ideologue. We have to do this with everybody involved in finance, including Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman.

Firstly, human beings make mistakes. They don't always know what the fuck they're doing, they adjust where they are wrong (if they are decent) and pursue ideas overall that they are right. The pedagogy of these people often differs greatly from the real political and economic realities they influence and represent.

Soros is for deregulation to some degree, and greater regulation (much greater regulation) in other arenas. Currency speculation and derivatives has been an area where he has been highly critical of and also an area he has become exceptionally wealthy from.

This is a bit like a slave owner who seeks the abolition of slavery. These people have always existed, we actually have them on our currency. It doesn't mean we should ignore everything they stand for, does it?

"Is it okay to hate him because he helps bankroll "regime change" in countries he personally deems not democratic enough?"

I guess so, but bear in mind that he did what he could to see to Bush's defeat in 2004. How offended would you have been if Soros had been able to turn the tide on that one?

I get the feeling a lot of people are wrestling with the impact of individual power when it comes to Soros: dude has overall been involved in good and worthwhile causes, but should any man have that much power, and should we despise him simply for using his resources? Is he morally obligated to NOT try to improve the world (as he sees it)?

I also think some people hate him simply because he belongs to the 0.01% but that's fucking retarded.

Well it could be argued his actions helped cause thousands of deaths, and while I can't blame that entirely on soros, I also wouldn't be able to give 100% credit to soros if bush was defeated.

He's a little hedge fund man with a lot of money that thinks having a lot of money makes him know better and morally superior than anyone else. That's dangerous.

If you had his kind of money, every action you took or didn't take would serve as an expression of your morals and beliefs. It's a strange place to be in, but that's ultimately where George Soros is: what are your moral obligations when you have the power to change the world, and how do you know you're doing the right thing?

You can't just say he's an elephant so his money is lumbering and he accidentally does damage. He specifically targets countries he thinks aren't democratic enough (hint: not capitalistic enough) for regime change.

He could just stick to giving to real charities with politically neutral causes but he wants to change the course of history to fit his whims

Whims, doing what he believes is right after a deep and searching examination and moral assessment. Potato, potato.

That's bullshit and you know it. Stop evilhomer'ing

That's low. And no, it's not bullshit. While I would prefer a world where money didn't influence politics at all, for the time being I'll be glad when a man tries to use his wealth to do good.

I will concede that this has something to do with Soros being involved in causes that I find more or less constructive. I can imagine an anti-Soros -- let's call him "soroS" -- who genuinely believed that whites were the master race and tried to support the most racist candidates out there. soroS might be 100% sincere in his civic-mindedness, and I'd still call him a monster.

"Is he morally obligated to NOT try to improve the world (as he sees it)?"

Soros would argue that it is the moral obligation of capital to improve society, based on the essays I have read by him. He essentially advocates a low regulation of the consumer economy and heavy regulation of monopolistic and international finance/banking. Capital's fault is that it can be moved instantaneously away from labor markets. That is both improving and destroying the world.

Soros is of course also a target of hatred of Jews from both the left (he's an agent of Zion), and the right (he' an agent of Zion).