"Evil" George Soros 🌀
Many people like to have a bogeyman to point to, and they usually do it with near complete certainty. For a long time, and despite that irrefutably, he gives billions to feed, clothe, and hospitalize affected people around the world, as well as being financially supportive to peace initiatives during times of war, I've heard the rumours about Soros and how evil he supposedly is. Regardless if so, but especially if one hates Jews, or the 1%, it's just so easy to believe something like this that you've literally heard some version of, a hundred or a thousand times...
All the Soros conspiracies I've heard begin with some version of the claim that he was a Nazi collaborator, who in Hungary, helped confiscate the property of Jews during the holocaust. Supporting this accusation, the only evidence I've ever seen is a single short clip from a larger 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft in which he tells of being a 14 year old Jewish boy during the war, and how he was taken in as the false godson of someone in an effort to survive the evil around him.
But as it relates to my point, here the conversation gets interesting. The interviewer, Kroft, posses two quick questions to which Soros affirmatively replies.
Kroft: "My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours, who swore that you were his adopted godson."
Soros: "Yes, yes."
Kroft: "Went out in fact and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."
Soros: "That's right."
Kroft inquires about the difficulty he supposes this must have been, and Soros (perhaps as his rhetorically fatal flaw,) attempts to explain why as a child he did not see the big picture and that though he acknowledges that he could have been on the other side, he had no guilt because of his escaping the fate of his fellow Jews. Usually, it is somewhere around here that the interview is clipped by users on youtube videos, hoping to conclusively make their point.
But Soros goes on to make a contradictory, somewhat jumbled statement which had he heard it, should have caused a curious, or effective interviewer to restart the line of questioning.
Soros: "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."
Kroft: "Are you religious?"
Soros: "No."
Kroft: "Do you believe in G-d?"
Soros: "No."
Leaving an astute listener befuddled, instead of questioning the apparent contradiction, or if the question was properly heard and understood, at least as it was seen edited and aired, the subject was simply changed, and the 60 Minutes program then goes on with their own narrative and b-roll.
To conclude my point, the usual Soros conspiracy charges of the last 2 or 3 years have also been about his supposed goal to destroy the West through his payment of refugees around the world to help them get to the US, Canada, and to some more than others, the countries in Europe. But just yesterday (and I'm sure it wasn't the first time,) he clearly denied (part of) these claims in an article that he wrote about "saving Europe."
"In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán based his re-election campaign on falsely accusing me of planning to flood Europe, Hungary included, with Muslim refugees."
Why accept his denial? Because also in the article, and as better proof of his true desire than any of the conspiracy theorists ever seem to provide, he proposes a "Marshall plan for Africa" and several internal European steps, as a solution for the migrant crisis by primarily helping refugees in their home countries. He claims that any refugees that are taken in should be on a voluntary basis for both the refugee, and the receiving country. His proposal is multi-faceted and definitively shows that the conspiracy proponents are severely lacking in their versions of events.
All this to say, though I do not agree with some of his ideas, and if he did in fact collaborate with the Nazis, I would disgustedly conclude accordingly, but from the evidence I have seen, neither I nor anyone else can know the "truth about George Soros." Not least the claim that he is evil, the claim so many seem to profess with such utter confidence... (and such as evil speech and gossip, as if they themselves have no evil, or at best, amoral side.)
(Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton inspecting Nazi-stolen art.)
Thanks For Your Attention and Support!
Follow the money is all we can do. Heard a lot of bad stuff about it, and all you can do is see what NGO's he is funding (some of them are really bad).
I've heard rumours about "bad" stuff, but seen no actual evidence. And I'm obviously open to it, just haven't seen any. On the other hand, I've seen him building hospitals, giving food, etc.
Though I can agree that I think some political decisions have negative consequences, I don't think for instance, that people who vote a specific way because they want free medicine for themselves and/or the poor are necessarily bad, just mostly misguided. If you mean he does bad things in this way, then ok, I can agree even without evidence. But does he intentionally do bad? So many articles/videos claim is the "most evil man alive" etc. I'm just questioning...
the road to hell was paved by "good" intentions. Ask yourself if anyone G-dless can truly have a just outcome with "good" intentions. Yes medicine and "education" is being created, but the WHO he is funding is what should be investigated. So yah, it's great to give food and medicine to Gaza (as an example), but then what does it actually fund in the end.
Example: Saul Hamelech took pity on the King of Amalek. He also decided to save all the "good" animals that were captured. What resulted from the summary of those "good" intentions.
Good shabbos
He still has the pinta... But sure, it's like it is with anyone who can't see the full effects of his actions, but rightly or wrongly, whose actions are because of his sense of what the world needs and also how he can benefit.
It just all comes down to evidence for me. Who is he funding that we don't just disagree with, but who is genuinely evil or doing evil, and what proof is there?
We have reason to doubt the oft repeated charges against him as I presented in the post, so my skepticism regarding any others is heightened.
**
Thanks and you guys also have a shabbat shalom in your new place!
Some of the worst should have had the pints click in. Sometimes it doesn’t and their actions precede the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Soros is not that caliber of Torca Madda.. but the money flow needs to be examined. I agree with not jumping to conclusions of course.
All I know is when I was a young stock broker, he broke the Bank of England shorting the pound back in 1992. That is all I know though.
I don't think he would have been the only person to short the pound, maybe the the most significant holder, and maybe he was first, but so many people follow his lead on everything he does. When we think SBD is going down relative to Steem, don't we do the same and get out of SBD?
And as far as I can see, since shorting is not done arbitrarily, there is nothing immoral about acting accordingly, after being the first to notice that a market, bank, company or country's books or values are inflated and realizing that a correction is inevitable. I might even suggest that it's the over valuing that is immoral.
In other words, isn't he just the lead of a corrective force for a perception and mistruth that he did not create?
Of course if there is evidence that he caused a panic by publicly lying about some fundamentals somewhere, or something similar, then I can consider it.
Oh no, you are correct. I am not making a judgment of him, just merely stating that is all I know about him. That is just what he is best know for. There is nothing immoral about shorting, its just the opposite of buying.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, we can only go on actual evidence, which is so hard to come by it seems.