George Soros and anti-Semitism (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

If you are calling Soros a puppetmaster, yes, I believe you're being manipulated by anti-Semites. 

https://theweek.com/articles/491590/billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters

Edit: If you Google "Koch puppetmaster," you will get a bazillion hits of articles from various media outlets referring to the Koch brothers as puppetmasters, and a handful of hits involving some poor South African guy named Koch who happens to be an actual puppeteer.  

 

[quick-hands]

There was a thread in here the other day about armed revolt or something that quickly got nuked. Anyway, in that thread there was a tangential discussion of George Soros, and @timschochet mentioned that a lot of the criticism Soros receives is anti-Semitic, which really seemed to set some other posters off, with one chiding Tim for "bringing religion into the discussion". The thing is, that was the second time in recent months that I'd seen posters ridiculing the idea that Soros is a victim of anti-Semitism. And I feel compelled to say: You guys have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't even a close call.

Let me get the obvious disclaimers out of the way: No, Soros -- as with every other person who tries to influence the political process -- is not exempt from criticism. Yes, it's possible to criticize him on non-anti-Semitic grounds, and plenty of people who do so have zero prejudicial intent.

But to minimize the role that anti-Semitism plays in his vilification, you would have to be willfully obtuse: The grotesque cartoons that are directly cribbed from historical anti-Semitic imagery. The conspiracy-minded elevation of him as a global mastermind controlling events behind the scenes, a classic anti-Semitic trope that was previously employed against the Rothschilds. The false smear that Soros, a Holocaust survivor, was actually a Nazi collaborator.

I know a lot of people will think, "Well, I'm criticizing him for non-anti-Semitic reasons, so I don't have to worry about what a bunch of bigots are saying." But that ignores the fact that prejudice is designed to operate at a subconscious level. The neo-Nazis may be up front about their Judeophobia, but when otherwise well-meaning people echo their language with phrases like "puppet master" and "monster", they're furthering the anti-Semites' agenda by affirming those stereotypes in people's minds. (And yes, I apply the same standard to the left. Like Soros, groups such as AIPAC are not above criticism, but IMO those on the left who oppose them have an obligation to not describe the organization in ways that echo the classic trope of Jews exerting outsized control over political systems.)

Think of it this way: There are some awful anti-Semites out there who spend their time thinking of ways to inject their poisonous beliefs into our political discourse. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated into being their unwitting assistants

I don't see you criticized him at all

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think it's a ridiculous stretch.  Soros acting like puppet-master isn't anti-semitic.  It's a realistic depiction.  I consume a ton of news, most of it from Conservative news sources.  I'd say I'm probably in the top 5% percentile of people who consume the most news - maybe higher - and I didn't even know George Soros was Jewish.

The first cartoon?  No.  NOT AT ALL.  The second one?  I think yes - because of the inclusion of Rothschild.  Anti-semitism exists out there.  Believe me - I fight that #### with more passion than just about anything else.

Look - sorry I'm all riled up on this Iggy.  You're a good dude.  I clearly need a break from these boards.  I am really concerned about the country right now.

May be healthy to take a break from the news too. Constantly digesting fear and concern is going to result in......fear and concern.

 

[djmich]

Only reason I know he’s Jewish is from timmy 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Only reason I know he’s Jewish is from timmy 

Sure, and nobody is disparaging you and others like you here. Let's be clear about that. I'm a Jew and I would never call folks like you "anti-semites" for hating on Soros.

But the people responsible for you knowing his name at all are well aware that he is Jewish. And for the most part they're aware of the fact that globalist is a coded anti-semitic slur when they use it to describe him.

 

[djmich]

I don’t doubt that there are anti-semites that hate Soros.  He’s Jewish and they’re anti-semites so it would seem logical.

But now the term globalist is anti-semetic?  When I hear globalist I for some reasons think Macron and Merkle.  Not sure why, but the anti-semites have done a poor job trickling this association down to the plebes like me.

More importantly will the Harlem Globetrotters now need to change their name to The Harlem Basketball Team?

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I don’t doubt that there are anti-semites that hate Soros.  He’s Jewish and they’re anti-semites so it would seem logical.

But now the term globalist is anti-semetic?  When I hear globalist I for some reasons think Macron and Merkle.  Not sure why, but the anti-semites have done a poor job trickling this association down to the plebes like me.

More importantly will the Harlem Globetrotters now need to change their name to The Harlem Basketball Team?

Yup. Like I said, nobody expects the audience to know this and nobody holds them accountable for using it.  And the same goes for Trump, honestly, as he is not exactly the most enlightened guy in politics. Sometimes a "globalist" is just a "globalist."

But the folks at Fox News et al who are most likely the reason you are familiar with the word as applied to Soros in the first place? They absolutely positively know this. They just don't care.

ETA: I see you said "now the term globalist is anti-semitic."  It's not a "now" thing.  It's been that way for quite some time, as the article I linked explains.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I don’t doubt that there are anti-semites that hate Soros.  He’s Jewish and they’re anti-semites so it would seem logical.

But now the term globalist is anti-semetic?  When I hear globalist I for some reasons think Macron and Merkle.  Not sure why, but the anti-semites have done a poor job trickling this association down to the plebes like me.

More importantly will the Harlem Globetrotters now need to change their name to The Harlem Basketball Team?

As thoroughly enjoyable as that absurd debate would be, "globetrotter" is a completely different word with a completely different meaning.

 

[SoBeDad]

The name George threw me off regarding whether he was Jewish. The Trump era made me pay much closer attention to politics.

Only reason I know he’s Jewish is from timmy 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don’t doubt that there are anti-semites that hate Soros.  He’s Jewish and they’re anti-semites so it would seem logical.

But now the term globalist is anti-semetic?  When I hear globalist I for some reasons think Macron and Merkle.  Not sure why, but the anti-semites have done a poor job trickling this association down to the plebes like me.

More importantly will the Harlem Globetrotters now need to change their name to The Harlem Basketball Team?

It's not.  "Globalist" vs. "nationalist" is a helpful, broad-brush way of describing how people choose to orient themselves.  George Soros is definitely, 100% on the "globalist" side of that spectrum.  I'm not super-familiar with Soros, but based on his biography I would guess that he'd enthusiastically agree with that description.  

It wouldn't surprise me to learn to that anti-Semites use the term "globalist" as a code word or something, but that's not a good reason for the rest of us to give up a perfectly useful word.  We would need to come up with another term to describe a person who places global welfare ahead of the interests of any particular nation-state, and then the anti-Semites would probably turn that word in a slur.  Nuts to that.  I'm not giving these tools veto power over my dictionary.  

 

[timschochet]

Globalist is not an anti-Semitic term. 

Most of those who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration are not racist towards Hispanics, 

Most of those who oppose affirmative action are not racist towards black people. 
 

But the anti-semites among us like to use the word globalist to describe Jews, the anti-Hispanic racists among us like to attack illegal immigration, and the anti-black racists among us like to attack affirmative action. 

This in turn causes many Jews, when they hear the term “globalist”, to be suspicious of anti-semitism, many Hispanics, when they hear illegal immigration attacked, to be suspicious of anti-Hispanic racism, and many blacks, when they hear affirmative action attacked, to be suspicious of anti-black racism. Something to keep in mind…

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Globalist is not an anti-Semitic term. 

Most of those who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration are not racist towards Hispanics, 

Most of those who oppose affirmative action are not racist towards black people. 
 

But the anti-semites among us like to use the word globalist to describe Jews, the anti-Hispanic racists among us like to attack illegal immigration, and the anti-black racists among us like to attack affirmative action. 

This in turn causes many Jews, when they hear the term “globalist”, to be suspicious of anti-semitism, many Hispanics, when they hear illegal immigration attacked, to be suspicious of anti-Hispanic racism, and many blacks, when they hear affirmative action attacked, to be suspicious of anti-black racism. Something to keep in mind…

You know what else anti-Semites like to do?  They really like to criticize Israel.

But so what?  Israel shouldn't be immune from criticism just because it happens to be a Jewish state and just because anti-Semites like to pile on.  I'd probably avoid referring to Israelis as parasites who bleed their hosts dry like the blood-sucking vermin that they are, but that's not going to deter me from criticizing Israel if they take an action that I would criticize, say, France or the UK for taking.  And I know you agree.

 

[FairWarning]

Yup. Like I said, nobody expects the audience to know this and nobody holds them accountable for using it.  And the same goes for Trump, honestly, as he is not exactly the most enlightened guy in politics. Sometimes a "globalist" is just a "globalist."

But the folks at Fox News et al who are most likely the reason you are familiar with the word as applied to Soros in the first place? They absolutely positively know this. They just don't care.

ETA: I see you said "now the term globalist is anti-semitic."  It's not a "now" thing.  It's been that way for quite some time, as the article I linked explains.

I doubt Soros gets mentioned on MSM at all.

 

[timschochet]

You know what else anti-Semites like to do?  They really like to criticize Israel.

But so what?  Israel shouldn't be immune from criticism just because it happens to be a Jewish state and just because anti-Semites like to pile on.  I'd probably avoid referring to Israelis as parasites who bleed their hosts dry like the blood-sucking vermin that they are, but that's not going to deter me from criticizing Israel if they take an action that I would criticize, say, France or the UK for taking.  And I know you agree.

I do agree. In my post you replied to, I merely pointed out that this is why people think the way they do, So like you I think it’s important to be sensitive about that and to try to avoid certain memes in each case that will raise suspicions of bigotry. But the purpose is not to stifle legitimate debate. 

 

[massraider]

George Soros reading

Several articles in there, good reading on how far right anti-semites spread those absurd theories, and repeat his name over and over again, until we get to the point where suckers head over to message boards, and casually mention as fact that Soros is a puppetmaster. 

He's a wealthy donor. That's it, conspiracy theorists. A donor.

 

[timschochet]

George Soros reading

Several articles in there, good reading on how far right anti-semites spread those absurd theories, and repeat his name over and over again, until we get to the point where suckers head over to message boards, and casually mention as fact that Soros is a puppetmaster. 

He's a wealthy donor. That's it, conspiracy theorists. A donor.

Also a great man. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

George Soros reading

Several articles in there, good reading on how far right anti-semites spread those absurd theories, and repeat his name over and over again, until we get to the point where suckers head over to message boards, and casually mention as fact that Soros is a puppetmaster. 

He's a wealthy donor. That's it, conspiracy theorists. A donor.

Does it similarly bother you when people referred to the Koch brothers as puppet-masters? 

If so, okay.  That's kind of weird, but at least it's consistent.

If not, why not?  George Soros and Charles Koch seem to be really good comps.  They're both really rich, and they both use their wealth and connections to drive policy.  The only differences are that one is Jewish and one isn't, and one is progressive and one isn't, but those differences are immaterial, or should be, to how we describe their place in the world.

(This whole thread feels like an effort to find somebody to argue with.  I spend way too much time here, and I can't recall seeing any conspiracies about George Soros recently.  Who are you talking to?)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Does it similarly bother you when people referred to the Koch brothers as puppet-masters? 

If so, okay.  That's kind of weird, but at least it's consistent.

If not, why not?  George Soros and Charles Koch seem to be really good comps.  They're both really rich, and they both use their wealth and connections to drive policy.  The only differences are that one is Jewish and one isn't, and one is progressive and one isn't, but those differences are immaterial, or should be, to how we describe their place in the world.

It bothers me more for Soros, because it's often either being deliberately used by anti-Semites or inadvertently being used by non-anti-Semites in a way that furthers stereotypes. But I probably wouldn't use the term to describe the Kochs either. At this point, I have a visceral reaction to the term. I don't know if that's rational but it's how I feel.

 

[massraider]

(This whole thread feels like an effort to find somebody to argue with.  I spend way too much time here, and I can't recall seeing any conspiracies about George Soros recently.  Who are you talking to?)

It was a deleted thread. EKBeats discussing how we need to take up arms against the government because a prosecutor in New York filed those stupid charges against that poor bodega clerk. 

And Soros donated to a fund that helped get that prosecutor elected, so that's how we get from Soros to a bodega clerk in two moves. EKBeats brought Soros up, with the extent of his evidence being that Soros donated. 

Regarding the Koch's, I think the difference is that people believe they are driving policy for personal gain, and I believe most libs believe that about them. 

People not hearing about Soros conspiracy theories doesn't mean they don't exist, and people wind up repeating watered down versions of these theories. Which happened in the very thread that EKBeats deleted, after people dared question his idea about open revolt. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It was a deleted thread. EKBeats discussing how we need to take up arms against the government because a prosecutor in New York filed those stupid charges against that poor bodega clerk. 

And Soros donated to a fund that helped get that prosecutor elected, so that's how we get from Soros to a bodega clerk in two moves. EKBeats brought Soros up, with the extent of his evidence being that Soros donated. 

Regarding the Koch's, I think the difference is that people believe they are driving policy for personal gain, and I believe most libs believe that about them. 

People not hearing about Soros conspiracy theories doesn't mean they don't exist, and people wind up repeating watered down versions of these theories. Which happened in the very thread that EKBeats deleted, after people dared question his idea about open revolt. 

Okay, fair enough.  I wasn't in that particular thread and obviously missed something.  I was like "Why are we talking about George Soros all of the sudden -- what happened?"

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'll take that as a response to me for posting other cartoons with puppets and puppet masters. 

you based your OP around 2 cartoons of GS being a puppet master and aligned it to 1 cartoon from who knows when and called it "Directly cribbed from historical anti-Semitic imagery" You went on to claim that all references to being a puppet master had anti-semtic undertones which is simply not true. Just b/c a visual example was used in 1 anti-semetic instance you dont get to claim it's entire usage as anti-semetic when it fits your argument. 

And Yes, if someone drew Thomas eating a watermelon, no one would blame the watermelon from here on out. 

Oh FFS.

Guys, I'm not writing Gordon Gekko-length treatises here. It's not that hard to read my posts and describe what I actually said rather than some strawman you invented. In this case, I never said "all references". I said that when it's used to describe a Jewish billionaire it has anti-Semitic undertones. The fact that you thought referencing Pinocchio was some kind of massive own says more about you than it does about me.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

https://theweek.com/articles/491590/billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters

Edit: If you Google "Koch puppetmaster," you will get a bazillion hits of articles from various media outlets referring to the Koch brothers as puppetmasters, and a handful of hits involving some poor South African guy named Koch who happens to be an actual puppeteer.  

Oof. Maybe these guys can invite him to their support group

 

[Manster]

George Soros does not exist......these are not the droids you're looking for

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

You live in miami. You cant be bothered to care about a crazy DA in Los Angeles.

Soros lives in New York. He donated millions for a crazy DA in Los Angeles. 

Catchin what I am throwin here? 

OK, I misinterpreted your initial post. I thought you were asking why I care about Soros if I live in Miami.

In any event, I wasn't arguing that it would be inappropriate for me to care about the LA DA. I just don't happen to care about it. If Soros wants to care about it, I don't see why anyone should have an issue with that. You can disagree with how he's involving himself, but I don't think the mere fact of that involvement is problematic. I read somewhere that he's helping to fund the democratic opposition to the Burmese military dictatorship; should he not do that because he doesn't live in Burma?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

There's a lot of latent anti-Semitism in the world, but it generally takes different forms and finds different avenues than Soros bashing. I'd be surprised if Soros's portrayal in American media has even come close to anti-Semitic. Our newspapers and editorial page cartoonists are notoriously woke when it comes to that. So unless they're talking about the plight of Palestinians, I hardly expect any of our newspapers to come close to anti-Semitism. Jews (unless they're being asked to atone for Israel and its policies in the West Bank, which is where you'll find the real anti-Semites these days) are pretty much off the table for criticism in American media, especially criticism using the historical tropes you mention. The cartoons you link are likely independent or European. That's my Spidey Sense about the whole thing. 

It literally would have taken you two seconds to click on the links and see the cartoons were created by Antonio Branco and Ben Garrison, both Americans who were commenting on US politics. Branco's ran on Fox News (before they took it down in the face of protest) and Garrison's was commissioned by Mike Cernovich.

In any event, I'm sure the members of the Tree of Life Synagogue will be relieved to hear that the only type of anti-Semitism they need to worry about is from Europeans, leftists and Palestinians. (Incidentally, you'll never guess who the ToL shooter referenced in his Gab post immediately before the shooting.)

It would be really nice if Jews had the luxury of only having to worry about violence from one end of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, history amply demonstrates that the one thing the far-left and far-right seem to agree on is that "Everybody hates the Jews".

 

[jon_mx]

I was about to post the opposite of this.  I hardly ever encounter references to George Soros these days -- that feels like a throwback to the early 2000s or something.  But the references that I remember weren't even remotely anti-Semitic.  The criticism directed at him that I recall from places like NRO was nearly indistinguishable from the same type of criticism directed at the Koch brothers, only a few years earlier.

But you've already spotted the difference.  I'm remembering National Review circa 2004.  You're looking at QAnon circa right now.  There's a very high likelihood that we're both right in our own way.  (I should pay more attention to the far right -- those folks are driving the party that figures to control all three branches of government in the near future, so being completely ignorant of what those people are talking about probably doesn't reflect very well on my civic knowledge.  But these people are just nuts.  I'm completely down with weird eccentrics who worry about things like the simulation hypothesis, but people on the American far right manage to be both crazy and boring simultaneously, and I can't abide that combination.)

Twitter, Facebook, google,, youtube all cater the person, which probably explains why conservatives always see liberals as insane whackobs and liberals always see conservatives as insane whackjobs.  That is how social media spoons feeds us.  I am almost convinced those companies need to be broken into pieces.  

 

[LawFitz]

Regarding the Koch's, I think the difference is that people believe they are driving policy for personal gain, and I believe most libs believe that about them. 

This is exactly what people believe about Soros. No difference.

 

[massraider]

This is exactly what people believe about Soros. No difference.

Nope. There's a bunch of deranged antisemitism about him. 

 

[jon_mx]

Nope. There's a bunch of deranged antisemitism about him. 

 Yeah, it has nothing to do with his idiotic promotion of Marxism. 

 

[LawFitz]

Nope. There's a bunch of deranged antisemitism about him. 

Soros controls media and politicians like few others. He undermines markets so that he can invest in them after collapse. He's done it multiple times in Europe and Asia and is now pulling the same tactics in the US. His religion is irrelevant to the vast majority of his critics, but I can see it's now a convenient way to try to silence them. You won't silence us with this transparent and laughable tactic. Sorry, bud.

 

[LawFitz]

Oh, and BTW, Soros is not Jewish. He is of Jewish heritage, but identifies as an atheist. He also fancies himself as a messiah, which is weird considering he doesn't believe in God. Who/what exactly, is he a messiah for?

STEVE KROFT: Are you religious?
GEORGE SOROS: No.
KROFT: Do you believe in God?
SOROS: No.

—Interview on CBS “60 Minutes” (Dec. 20, 1998)

Now is it okay to point out that this guy is a POS? Or nah?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Oh, and BTW, Soros is not Jewish. He is of Jewish heritage, but identifies as an atheist. He also fancies himself as a messiah, which is weird considering he doesn't believe in God. Who/what exactly, is he a messiah for?

Now is it okay to point out that this guy is a POS? Or nah?

Judaism is simultaneously a religion and an ethnicity (and, in some people's minds, a race). Trust me when I tell you the anti-Semites don't care if he's secular

 

[LawFitz]

Judaism is simultaneously a religion and an ethnicity (and, in some people's minds, a race). Trust me when I tell you the anti-Semites don't care if he's secular

Trust me when I tell the vast majority of Soros critics don't care about his race, ethnicity or religion.

 

[FairWarning]

Judaism is simultaneously a religion and an ethnicity (and, in some people's minds, a race). Trust me when I tell you the anti-Semites don't care if he's secular

All its doing is deflecting the reasons he’s hated.

Think if Soros decided to dominate millions to Trump.  I bet the narrative changes fast.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All its doing is deflecting the reasons he’s hated.

Think if Soros decided to dominate millions to Trump.  I bet the narrative changes fast.

Actually, there was a dust-up a while back when Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) called Sheldon Adelson a puppet-master and had to apologize for it.  I think that term is totally fine, but in fairness there are at least some folks on the other side who are willing to be consistent about it.

 

[massraider]

You won't silence us with this transparent and laughable tactic. 

Hey, as long as you're not dramatic or anything. 

It's a corner of a fantasy football message board. Maybe tap the brakes on the whole "you'll never silence us". 

 

[LawFitz]

Hey, as long as you're not dramatic or anything. 

It's a corner of a fantasy football message board. Maybe tap the brakes on the whole "you'll never silence us". 

Fair enough.

Still though, it's at least as dramatic and super lame to imply that criticizing Soros is somehow linked to affiliation with or being under the influence of anti-Semitism. Especially considering that he himself claims that he's not Jewish.

 

[jon_mx]

Oh geez, let's not pretend Soros is just some donor.  The guy spent $708 million on political causes in 2018 alone.  It takes the DNC and RNC a couple years to raise $500 million.  In comparison, the 'pupetmasters' the Koch brothers spent $125 million.  Soros is not singled out for anti-semetic reason, Soros is singled out because he is the most influential left-wing kook there is.  

 

[LawFitz]

“I fancied myself as some kind of god ...” he once wrote. “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

“I am sort of a deus ex machina,” Soros told the New York Times in 1994. “I am something unnatural. I’m very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I’m not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I’ve very much self-centered.”

“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad,” Soros once confided on British television. “In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it.”

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.”

- George Soros 

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Actually, there was a dust-up a while back when Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) called Sheldon Adelson a puppet-master and had to apologize for it.  I think that term is totally fine, but in fairness there are at least some folks on the other side who are willing to be consistent about it.

I disagreed with most of what Adelson stood for, and I think you can make the case that in Israel in particular his cozy relationship with Netanyahu was corrosive to that country's democracy (whereas in the US he mostly just spread ####loads of money around getting conservatives elected and protecting his casino interests). But yes, I would absolutely have condemned remarks like Waters' or any other anti-Semitic attacks leveled at him with the same vehemence I condemn those against Soros.

That actually gets to what I've found most surprising -- and most disheartening -- about this thread. I expected some pushback on my initial post, but I naively assumed it would mostly be of the "bad apples" variety: "Yes, some of the people attacking Soros are anti-Semitic, but I think you're giving too much attention to a small minority."

Instead, nearly all the responses have been ridiculously vituperative and over-the-top. It's not just that they refuse to concede that any of the criticism directed at Soros is anti-Semitic. It's not just that they consider the very idea to be "laughable" and direct insults my way for even raising the topic. It's that apparently they can't even conceive that anyone's motivation in raising this issue could be genuine concern over anti-Semitism. Thus the repeated whining about how this is all an effort to silence critics and deflect criticism of Soros' monstrous agenda.

At first I was confused when multiple posters immediately jumped to the conclusion that I must be a supporter of all of the Soros-backed liberal DAs, but then I realized why: if this whole thing was an effort to deflect, then obviously I must be a loyal foot soldier in his revolution. The notion that this has absolutely nothing to do with Soros' politics is apparently beyond their ken.

Allow me to let all you guys in on a little secret: Jews care about anti-Semitism. A lot. Even for Jews like me, whose life has for the most part been blessedly free of direct anti-Semitic attacks and insults, the fear is always out there. And with good reason. It's been a number of years since I've been to a church service, but for those who go regularly, is it common to see armed guards outside? Because I would say that's the case in just about every synagogue I walk into these days (and which was not the case when I was a kid). 

I referenced the Tree of Life massacre in an earlier post, but it's worth examining that a little more closely. It occurred shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, when Trump and the GOP were ramping up rhetoric about the supposed "migrant caravan" that was heading toward the border, frequently blaming Soros for funding it (falsely). The shooter posted anti-Semitic diatribes on Gab and other social media sites, frequently mentioning Soros. And even though his motivating issue was supposedly immigration, he didn't target pro-immigration groups or liberal politicians. He targeted a synagogue. Full of Jews.

So when I say I'm concerned about the anti-Semitism being directed at Soros, it's not because I'm trying to deflect and it's not because of some abstract concern. It's because we literally have centuries worth of history that shows anti-Semitic rhetoric frequently ends up producing dead Jews.

 

[LawFitz]

^^^ Ironic you accusing others of whining here.

Anti-Semitism exists. George Soros is a POS. There is some overlap between those two sentiments somewhere in the world. That sucks, but writing long diatribes which read like you are coming down on people criticizing Soros as being influenced by (or actual) anti-Semites also sucks. Hope you can see that.

 

[timschochet]

 Yeah, it has nothing to do with his idiotic promotion of Marxism. 

This made me laugh. You do realize that George Soros is one of the greatest anti communists ever, right? 
 

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

^^^ Ironic you accusing others of whining here.

Anti-Semitism exists. George Soros is a POS. There is some overlap between those two sentiments somewhere in the world. That sucks, but writing long diatribes which read like you are coming down on people criticizing Soros as being influenced by (or actual) anti-Semites also sucks. Hope you can see that.

Well you do make one good point: If I really wanted to convince you, instead of relying on the written word I should have instead posted an unending stream of YouTube links 

 

[ekbeats]

It was a deleted thread. EKBeats discussing how we need to take up arms against the government because a prosecutor in New York filed those stupid charges against that poor bodega clerk. 

And Soros donated to a fund that helped get that prosecutor elected, so that's how we get from Soros to a bodega clerk in two moves. EKBeats brought Soros up, with the extent of his evidence being that Soros donated. 

Regarding the Koch's, I think the difference is that people believe they are driving policy for personal gain, and I believe most libs believe that about them. 

People not hearing about Soros conspiracy theories doesn't mean they don't exist, and people wind up repeating watered down versions of these theories. Which happened in the very thread that EKBeats deleted, after people dared question his idea about open revolt. 

Fortunately I have my original post of the thread.  You tell me if what you just wrote is a fair and accurate portrayal.  I never said "we need to take up arms against the government."  The point of my topic was to warn against that happening.  I even went out of my way to say, "For the record, I am not advocating violence. I abhor violence, and if you want to know the truth I'm a pacifist."  I'll await your apology.

Thread Title - At What Point is it Acceptable For Citizens to Take up Arms Against Government Tyranny?

This is going to be a delicate topic. You guys all know of my fear about our country spiraling into a Civil War. This isn't crazy talk - it's a reasonable fear, especially after 1/6 and the Summer of Love.  

I'll start by saying that I consider 1/6 much in the same way that Liberals see it. It was a terrible day in our history, and after hearing the recent evidence from the 1/6 Committee I'm willing to admit I am wrong and that is was indeed an insurrection attempt. I was wrong by ridiculing this idea. I want these people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

On the flip side, I am extremely concerned with the complete disregard for the rule of law we are seeing on the Left. A Leftist, Soros funded Prosecutor in NY files murder charges against a man who was clearly defending himself, and then fails to file charges against the girlfriend who stabbed the man. There is no way to look at this case and not conclude that it is a blatant disregard for the laws as written. And no - no justifying this. We all see it clear as day on video.  The DOJ is completely disregarding very clear Federal and State statutes that prohibit protesting at courthouses and the homes of Judges. The law is clear as abell. The Washington Post, UCLA Law Professors, and several other sources who are capable of reading all agree that it's illegal. And then a lunatic Leftist tries to do what we all feared - assassinate Judge Kavanaugh at his home. STILL - NO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW BY GARLAND. Now we have a radical Leftist group offering a bounty for anyone who sees and reports a Conservative Supreme Court Justice in public. If anyone wants to do harm, this is the easiest way to accomplish it. Grab a rifle, hide behind the back door of the restaurant, and start shooting when the Justice leaves.

On the abortion front you have several state DA's vowing to not enforce the written law in that state. On the border you have an Administration that seems more than happy letting anyone and everyone into the country. We've seen countless examples of Soros funded Prosecutors letting criminals walk.  The Left has long been accused of facilitating crime, and deservedly so. The Right has a checkered past on Justice, most notably in the South and affecting blacks. All of it is wrong. There is a very clear track record of great civilizations collapsing, and the last straw that broke the camel's back is usually the politicization of the Justice system. We are seeing that now.

Many years ago my Mom died from a rare disease called amyloidosis. Her physical condition deteriorated over a period of three years. She became very ill one day and was admitted to the hospital. The Doctor came out to talk to me and my siblings and told us that my Mom wouldn't last the week. It was a shock to me, but after some passage of time I was able to look back and see that the signs of her dying were all there. I was in denial because I didn't think it could ever happen to her. This was an incredible woman who raised 7 kids, worked full-time, shielded her kids from her husband's alcoholism, and never missed a day of work in all the years I knew her. What I'm saying here is this - we often don't see things coming because we simply don't want to. That's why it's important to look at objective facts, measured against historical realities. And from what I am seeing, this country is on the precipice.

We can debate topics. We can disagree, call each other names, get hot and bothered and storm out of the room, but at the end of the day we need to acknowledge that the administration of Justice needs to occur in an objective manner, with a thoughtful and honest review of the facts and the intent of the law.  We have crossed that red line. So what do we do about it?

In my mind, we have two options:

1. Peacefully remove Prosecutors and other officials who are clearly politicizing the law.

2. If #1 doesn't happen - prepare for armed revolt.

For the record, I am not advocating violence. I abhor violence, and if you want to know the truth I'm a pacifist. But I'm also a realist, and an ardent believer of the words of Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics (policy) by other means."  So my question is - when is it appropriate and moral for citizens to take up arms against a Government that is not following the rule of law? Please be respectful and careful as you provide your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

EK, man, God bless ya, and I totally can see your thought process behind starting the thread, but rereading it now, it feels like the equivalent of your buddy saying, "I'm gonna take this turn at 70 MPH and see what happens." There was no way that discussion wasn't going to end in a flaming wreck (which, to your credit, you figured out pretty quickly) 

 

[ekbeats]

EK, man, God bless ya, and I totally can see your thought process behind starting the thread, but rereading it now, it feels like the equivalent of your buddy saying, "I'm gonna take this turn at 70 MPH and see what happens." There was no way that discussion wasn't going to end in a flaming wreck (which, to your credit, you figured out pretty quickly) 

Yeah, not one of my better efforts Iggy.

Which is why I give you THIS! 

 

[LawFitz]

Well you do make one good point: If I really wanted to convince you, instead of relying on the written word I should have instead posted an unending stream of YouTube links 

When all else fails with your argument, might as well resort to a personal dig. Hope it made you feel better, buddy.

 

[jon_mx]

This made me laugh. You do realize that George Soros is one of the greatest anti communists ever, right? 
 

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe

And yet he funds virtually all of the most pro-Marxists organizations in the US which have produced an army of openly Marxist activists.   He is one of those who fundamentally believes in the principles of Marxism but blames poor implementation for its epic failures but fails to realize the fault lies in inherient flaws.  

 

[jon_mx]

George Soros:

"The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."

"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States."

 

[LawFitz]

This made me laugh. You do realize that George Soros is one of the greatest anti communists ever, right? 
 

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/george-soros-and-the-fall-of-communism-in-europe

Bro, this viper doesn't care about Communism vs Capitalism. He cares about destabilizing societies from within, then swooping in to buy depressed assets from among the ashes. His pattern is beyond clear at this point. When a society is communist, he's a capitalist. When a society is capitalist, he's a Marxist. Regardless, he's an opportunist of the worst kind.