Of Course It's Legitimate to Criticize George Soros' Spending to Influence American Politics


Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass has apparently had his column moved from page 2 "farther back in the print edition" after being accused of anti-Semitism for his column criticizing George Soros' influence on American politics:

President Donald Trump is sending federal law enforcement into the big cities run by Democratic mayors, where murder and gang shootings are out of control and where once vibrant downtown areas are on their way to becoming ghost towns.

And naturally, the Democratic mayors, backing Joe Biden, are on the defensive, upset that the president might win political advantage, even as the mayors feud with their own police departments, as the violence rises in their towns, as children are gunned down.

But these Democratic cities are also where left-wing billionaire George Soros has spent millions of dollars to help elect liberal social justice warriors as prosecutors. He remakes the justice system in urban America, flying under the radar.

The Soros-funded prosecutors, not the mayors, are the ones who help release the violent on little or no bond….

I can't speak with confidence about just why the Tribune decided as it did. (The official Tribune statement was that the columnists were moved into an opinion section to "help … maintain the credibility of our news coverage with our online audience, our print readers and our communities amid what is by all accounts a raw and hyper-partisan political environment.") But the claim that Kass's column is anti-Semitic—"The odious, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that billionaire George Soros is a puppet master controlling America's big cities does not deserve a mainstream voice, especially at a time when hate crimes are rising"—strikes me as quite unfounded.

George Soros is trying to play a major role in American political life; according to the New York Magazine (Gabriel Debenedetti) story "Ranking the Most Influential Democratic Donors in the 2020 Race," George Soros was #3 on the list, right behind Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. People can praise him for that, or can criticize him, just as the Kochs on the right and other such spenders are criticized by people they disagree with. I have nothing against rich people spending money to support speech they like, but it's perfectly legitimate to fault them for promoting what the author thinks are bad ideas.

Nor does this seem to be some sort of cherry-picking of a Jewish donor just because he's Jewish. He is indeed a major and long-standing funder of left-wing causes; his role in funding causes he believes in is widely reported in mainstream media outlets, see, e.g., this recent Bloomberg story about his plan to "Invest $220 Million in U.S. Equality Groups," and this recent Washington Post op-ed on his "trying to change the system that made him rich." [UPDATE: Just to be clear, he also seems unusual in donating a lot of money "to help elect liberal social justice warriors as prosecutors," which is Kass's objection; just for an example, see these Washington Post articles about Soros's massive contribution to one local race.]

Soros is genuinely a big player here, and thus rightly a big target for those who disagree with him. (For whatever it's worth, as best I can tell, of the 8 top Democratic donors included on the New York Magazine list, 7 are Jewish, and the one exception, Tom Steyer, is half-Jewish, though a practicing Christian.) We Jews shouldn't be specially criticized because we are Jewish, but we also aren't entitled to special immunity from criticism because we are Jewish.

Kass's response is here. David Bernstein took a somewhat different approach in this 2018 post, though I read David's point there as focused on lies and distortions about Soros rather than criticisms generally (such as Kass's).

UPDATE: Thanks to Hans Bader for pointing me to the Arlington County race that I mention in the UPDATE above.

NEXT: Kansas Knife Statute Held Unconstitutionally Vague

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Highlighting the 3rd most influential Dem donor as the one responsible for driving urban policies through buying SJW prosecutors falls into some rather familiar tropes.

    Antisemetic or not, Soros as supervillain remains a pretty silly trope folks like to write to.
    It's also silly when one brings up the Koch brothers, but that doesn't seem nearly as widespread, nor to involve as much ubiquitous unseen influence.
    Hmmm...I'm beginning to convince myself there may be something to this puppetmaster trope after all.

    1. Soros has focused specifically on getting local DAs elected who are far left extremist whackos.

      1. By far left wacko, you mean people who have represented actual defendants for most of their careers so they know the faults of the criminal justice system far better than career prosecutors who are willfully blind to them.

        1. No, I mean folk like Rachael "Decline to Prosecute" Rollins -- it's so bad in Massachusetts that some of the other county DAs have essentially taken out PSAs reminding people that shoplifting is still illegal in their counties.

          1. Decline to bring the heavy violence of the state against people for a crime that suburban kids routinely commit but never enter the criminal justice system for?

            1. She could instead agree to "Continue Without A Finding" -- where it goes into the shredder if you aren't arrested for something *else* in the next 12 months. And we're not talking a candy bar -- we're talking $600 coats, and more than one at a time.

          2. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian Policing And Prosecution (With Disparate Impact) is convened . . .

            . . . with the usual reception sponsored by Libertarians For Government Killing (Of The "Right" People) to follow.

            1. Soros is THE dominant donor in the prosecutor races Kass was writing about -- not #3. Kass quite logically mentioned Soros because he, alone, contributed most (not a lot, most) of the campaign funds for many of the left-wing prosecutors who ousted more moderate incumbents in Democratic primaries.

              That was certainly true in northern Virginia, where the outright majority of the money raised by the successful challenger prosecutor candidates in Arlington and Fairfax counties came from an entity bankrolled by Soros.

              As the blog post below notes, this was reported on at the time by the mainstream liberal newspapers that opposed the Soros candidates (like the Falls Church News-Press). The Arlington prosecutor's challenger received close a million dollars from an entity created by Soros, the vast majority of the money she raised (the item below says $583,237, but that was just the amount reported midway through the campaign).

              And Soros's money made the difference in both races. Both challengers won by just 2 or 3% of the vote.

              Not mentioning Soros would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. It would be like telling the story of Hamlet without mentioning the prince.

              1. So you CAN make the article's point without invoking Soros as a shadowy influence.

                Wonder why they didn't?

                1. Because one guy's spending having so much influence on local elections where he neither lives nor works seems rather undemocratic?

                  1. I'm not saying it isn't - my worry about money in politics is not partisan.

                    My point is that Hans Bader makes the article's point about Soros with facts and less of the intimation of secret influence than Kass does, showing that said intimations were needless, even gratuitous.

                  2. Come on, David.

                    Lots of big time contributors influence races in areas where they neither live nor work. To start with, both parties have committees to raise money for senatorial and congressional races. It's fair to say that most contributions go tp races where the contributors neither live nor work.

                    And since when are you, conservative or libertarian, concerned about the influence of money on elections? It's just speech, right?

                    1. Bernard,

                      There's influence, then there's basically single handedly fund the entire campaign, especially as an outside party. And large amounts of money like that can have a major influence, especially in a local election.

                    2. So do you favor restrictions on campaign contributions?

                      Because it sure seems like you want some on Soros.

                    3. I didn't say it should be legal. But it is a perfectly legitimate rhetorical point that a billionaire is spending lots of money to influence local elections in places that he has no specific ties to, i.e., it's an ideological crusade on his part, not an interest in the specifics of the locality.

                    4. Though by the way, while I think campaign contributions are fine, I wouldn't object to a law that said that for a race in any given jurisdiction, only residents of that jurisdiction may donate money.

              2. So when conservatives spend money to promote candidates it's just free speech, but when Soros does there's something nefarious about it?

      2. Then name the cities and the DA's.

        Just saying 'these cities have been brought down by Soros buying prosecutors' is not convincing anyone who hasn't bought into the Soros-as-evil-mastermind narrative.

        1. Suffolk County (Boston) and Rachel Rollins.

          1. Sounds like you'd write a pretty different story than John Kass.

            Blaming Soros on the shoplifting menace may not quite pop as well as you think it will, though.

            1. Oh, she also wouldn't protest things like throwing bottles of urine at police officers and such.

              1. Why are you speaking in past tense? And how often is that prosecuted generally?

                Your hate-on for her is not adding up to much so far.

                1. Urine bottles are not routinely thrown at police officers.

    2. Kochs were constantly, incessantly brought up before around 2016.

      1. This is true. And as a lefty/liberal/Democrat/what have you, I always thought that was stupid. Although I’m in the minority of that group who thinks Citizens United was probably correctly decided and isn’t that big of a deal.

      2. Yeah, they were. But as crappy billionaires throwing their money around for crappy reasons, not as nigh-supernatural Nazi beasts manipulating the globe for evil purposes.

        For one, they were invoked to discredit particular media organizations or individuals they funded. That's dumb, but it's not at all like the nebulous 'I'll bet SOROS did this!'

        This past week I've read about Soros-funded Antifa in Portland, ffs.

        1. Prominent historian Nancy MacLean wrote a book that won several awards, accusing them of trying to put "Democracy in Chains", remember?

          1. Wasn't that a history book about that Buchanan guy what got Bernstein all up in arms?

    3. Soros is by far the most influential donor in DA races, not #3. According to the liberal Falls Church News-Press, an entity bankrolled by Soros had contributed $583,237 to the progressive prosecutor candidate in Arlington County, just part way through her campaign. The progressive candidate defeated the moderate Democratic incumbent by just 51-to-48%, so it was Soros' money that made all the difference. Soros gave a similarly huge amount of money to the Fairfax County prosecutor's challenger, who prevailed by an even smaller margin (51-to-49%).

      1. Free speech, Hans.

        1. I think it's a legit opinion to argue that Soros' 'speech' is wrongheaded - that the prosecutors Soros backs have been soft on crime which leads to greater crime rates.

          I think that's a bad argument, has weak causality, and has some dodgy moral implications given how badly our criminal justice system needs reform, but it's not ridiculous.

    4. Look, he's an evil international banker with nefarious plans. It's totally outside our control that he's also in some very attenuated sense "Jewish".

      1. “Very attenuated” and Jewish in scare quotes? Really? Do you really not get how offensive and awful your beliefs that some people aren’t “real” Jews are?

        1. What, you're arguing for some kind of binary "single drop" rule here?

          1. No. I'm arguing you are an offensive dick for taking it upon yourself to judge who counts as a Jew who doesn't when they (including Soros) know better than anyone the meaning of their heritage.

            You also don't seem to realize that this distinction you make between Real Jews and "attenuated ones" allows you to launder your antisemitism.

            "See, it's not antisemitic to say Soros is a shadowy puppet master controlling everything from behind the scenes because he's not really Jewish!"

            "We don't have to take criticisms of the right wing anti-antisemitism seriously from Democratic Jews because they're Jews like I'm Irish: not at all!"

            Finally, while you may claim Soros and others are "attenuated" what do you think would have happened to him if he had actually been captured by Nazis at the age of 13?

          2. Shut up, Brett. You're crossing a line.

            You have no business deciding who is or is not a Jew.

            And you have no reason whatsoever to call Soros "an evil international banker with nefarious plans." It's nothing but a random piece of viciousness on your part.

            1. Okay I agree with you and @LawTalkingGuy in general, and am not really into the traditional alt-right blood-libel w/regards to Soros; I even am a bit of a fan of Soros- he actually helped build the internet, back in the DARPAnet days- built a link between the USA and Moscow. His voodoo investments and running off with (30 billion?) dollars in the UK? I'm ok with that, too. Theres nothing like a butthurt capitalist who gets jealous of another capitalist who skirts the laws better than they did. My problem with Soros is that he supported the Ukrainian Junta, and also takes too hard a stance against Russia/China. For a left-wing super-donor, hes actually endorses crazy levels of anti-Communism- like Roy Cohn- who was instrumental during the Red Scare #2, and also Trump's mentor.

              I'm one of the rare liberals who believes the Deep State is real- although not a card-carrying organization; more like 'an emergent property of US-intelligence-adjacent individuals, colluding with the Feds'. So J Edgar Hoover, for instance, may have been the DS ringleader- but he was also controlled by Meyer Lansky; a Jewish gangster that my gramps worked for. So the weird thing to me is that Meyer *hated* the Nazis- but he was working *with them* during the Dirty War. Well, on the same side as, at least- not directly with them. Much of that has to do with Jews being afraid of being called Commies and socialists, due to the association being so touted by McCarthy and Hitler era boobs.

              Of course, I kind of validate that association myself- since I'm both a Jew and socialist- just like Einstein was. (If you don't believe me, read his essay at MonthlyReview.org/Why-Socialism 🙂 Its short, and you can consider it opposition research if you must.)

      2. Evil?


        Your libertarian bona fides are in question. Soros made a pile by, among other things, betting against a currency agreement that couldn't withstand market forces.

        I'd think you'd celebrate that. Well, not you, but an honest libertarian.

  2. Sure in theory. But is there anyway to engage in Soros criticism today without giving a nod to explicit and odious antisemitism? I mean Soros as puppet master is a trope in the fever swamps of antisemitism: see Garrison, Ben. And people who engage in a lot of Soros criticism tend to drift into trumpeting conspiracy theories like “The Great Replacement” or something similar. Doesn’t aggressive or constant Soros criticism tend to validate these views?

    1. If he had wanted to pick on Jews, why not pick on the top two spenders instead of the third?

      That's like picking on Goering as your prime example of bad Nazis and ignoring Hitler, Himmler, and any number of others. (Not to imply there were any good Nazis, although considering how many there were, some most have been relatively decent.)

      1. Invoking Soros as supervillian can be problematic even if you pass over other Jews on your way to blaming his shadowy influence.

        1. There's that word, "problematic." What exactly is "problematic" about faulting Soros for spending a lot of money advocating a cause that Kass views (rightly or wrongly) as bad, namely electing "liberal social justice warriors as prosecutors"?

          1. First, I take your semantic point. Problematic, like 'interesting' is a term whose vagueness is a convenient crutch oft used to get around having to do more nuanced argumentation.

            But as to why it's "problematic," mere criticism of Soros' spending policies is not what Kass is doing - He remakes the justice system in urban America, flying under the radar is not about cause, it's about influence. Secret influence. A puppetmaster, if you will.
            That's leveraging a trope and narratives instead of actual argumentation or evidence.
            Is invoking that trope automatically antisemetic? I'd say no. Invoking it with a Jew in the center? You'd better bring a lot more evidence than this guy does.

            1. Right.

              Aside from the "Soros-controlled" business, the "under the radar" description smacks of secret conspiracies.

              There's nothing under the radar here. Soros is not concealing his contributions, or having these prosecutors make secret pledges to him at midnight in graveyards.

              If Kass wants to criticize the prosecutors let him. But pushing the notion that they are pawns in Soros' game is stupid and yeah, a touch antisemitic.

              1. "Aside from the “Soros-controlled” business, the “under the radar” description smacks of secret conspiracies."

                And he explains what he means by "under the radar", that Soros donates to prosecutors when it's the mayors that take heat for the policies. Surely you realize that the anti-Semitic trope isn't that Jews publicly donate to less-visible officials, right?

                1. You don't think the under-the-radar indicates that this less-visible officials thing is intentional, in order to keep these machinations secret?

                  I mean, I see it as more bang for your buck and less competition in the opposition, but I don't think that's the narrative being woven here...

                  1. "You don’t think the under-the-radar indicates that this less-visible officials thing is intentional, in order to keep these machinations secret?"

                    No. They're public donations.

                    1. Public does not mean well known.
                      As the article itself notes with 'under-the-radar.' Don't be intentionally obtuse.

                      I don't think that's Soros' agenda, but don't pretend the article doesn't.

                    2. "Public does not mean well known...Don’t be intentionally obtuse."

                      Back atcha.

                      Now you're reduced to claiming that the anti-Semitic trope is that Jews control stuff through public but less well-know donations? Just stop.

                    3. Whatever donations procure the nefarious influence the populous does not see, but should be outraged by.

                      Do you think the trope requires the money flow to be nonpublic?

                2. Sorry, your point is not clear to me.

                  Please elaborate if you care to.

                3. I don't think so, TIP.

                  He remakes the justice system in urban America, flying under the radar.

                  The Soros-funded prosecutors, not the mayors, are the ones who help release the violent on little or no bond.

                  That doesn't mean what you claim. People "flying under the radar" are trying to conceal their own actions. There is no evidence at all that Soros is being secretive here.

                  But it's a standard part of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

            2. "But as to why it’s “problematic,”...

              I believe the progressive left would refer to this as goyim-splaining.

              1. Because only Jews can see antisemitism?

                Next time you think something isn't racist, I'll be sure and tell you to stop whitesplaining. Or wait, I won't because that logic is dumb.

                1. It's you guys that have "mansplaining" remember?

                  1. Ah. So you don't know what words mean.

                    My apologies.

                    Mansplaining is not about men pointing out misogyny.

                    1. I guess they mean whatever your side wants them to.

                      "Believe all women" doesn't mean believe all women, etc.

                      But I guess I need to normal-person-splain mansplaining to a leftist.

                      A man explaining misogyny to a woman is certainly mansplaining.

                      "You see, sweetie, allow me you explain why this is sexist..."

                    2. You were wrong about what mansplaining means, and thus your goyimsplaining burn falls qutie flat.
                      It is clear from this post that you realize that.

      2. I get what you’re saying, but he’s sort of become enmeshed with the craziest theories compared to the top two. People know that Bloomberg and Steyer give to liberal causes. But people don’t typically say they fund caravans of third worlders to replace whites or that they pay protestors etc.

      3. If he had wanted to pick on Jews, why not pick on the top two spenders instead of the third?

        Because Soros is the best-known, and is a popular target on the right, especially the fringey right. And because he is more clearly regarded as a sort of moneymaster of great Jewish conspiracies, etc.

        Note too that Kass rather stupidly talks about "Soros-funded" prosecutors, as though he controls their budgets, rather than just contributing to their campaigns.

        IOW, the extreme (and not-so-extreme) right have set him up as some sort of Jewish bogeyman, so now criticism of him is sometimes seen as motivated by antisemitism. Tough noogies if Kass doesn't get it.

        Remember when he was funding the dreaded "caravan, " full of terrorists and MS-13 members and whatnot? That led to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

        1. "Because Soros is the best-known, and is a popular target on the right"

          Maybe that's because he's conspicuously evil, right down to the Nazi past?

          1. 1. Hans Bader above lays out a great conservative case against Soros that is not antisemetic in the least because it uses facts not crap like 'he's evil.'

            2. Nazi? Well, I guess it's you and Ed then. Enjoy that bedfellow.

            1. Brett clearly does not realize how awful his opinions are about Jews are. He was doing that he’s “not a real Jew” thing upthread.

          2. Maybe that’s because he’s conspicuously evil, right down to the Nazi past?

            The "Nazi past" is bullshit, Brett.

            And what is this "conspicuously evil" crap? He supports things, like democracy in Eastern Europe, that you don't approve of?

          3. Nazi past = 13-14 year old Jew posing as a Christian with a low level Hungarian official during the Holocaust.

    2. Soros wore a Nazi uniform during the Holocaust and helped steal Jewish property. Now if that isn't an act of antisemitism (if not a war crime), I can't imagine what is.

      So Soros is Jewish -- Roy Cohn was actually Gay himself, and.....

      1. Soros did not wear a uniform. He was a teenager.

        Victim blaming a Jewish child in Nazi Germany, and calling him an Antisemite is pretty low, though I've heard it before around here.

        1. 60 Minutes did a profile on him some time back, and showed a picture of him in uniform.

          He was 13 years old at the time -- that's the Jewish Age of Majority.
          As I understand Jewish theology, he was old enough to be responsible for what he was doing.

          And if what he was doing was antisemitic (and it was) then I don't have any problem calling him "antisemitic" as it is a term for those who do antisemitic things. Like stealing Jewish property.

          1. No, they did not.

            You just don't care about the truth of the factoids you pull.

            How about you don't invoke Jewish theology to try and tar a teenaged Jew in Nazi Germany as an antisemite, you incredible example of why criticisms of Soros get the side-eye, legitimate or no.

          2. Once again, Ed, you are full of shit.

      2. If I were a Conspirator, I would contemplate why my blog attracts this guy (who operates at the Alex Jones-FreeRepublic-Stormfront level) and so many like him.

        But I am not a right-winger, and have no experience as a culture war casualty, so I do not understand.

      3. Well that didn’t take long. He was 14 at the end of world War 2 (meaning he was 9 when it broke out) and he was being protected by a Hungarian official who went through Jewish property that had been confiscated by the Nazis. But sure, a kid was a member of the SS and was an enthusiastic Nazi collaborator. Go with that.

        1. He claims to have been born in 1930 but if you are changing the name, you really are better off changing the date of birth as well, and as the SS recruited at age 16, someone not wanting him drafted well may have made him younger than he actually was.

          1. Fuck you again, Ed.

  3. Soros survived the Holocaust. Did you miss that?

    Many actual anti-Semites (including a frequent new commenter here) accuse him of collaborating.

    1. Here is the 60 Minutes interview -- go about 7 minutes in.
      He was doing this in 1944 when he admits to being 14 -- an adult under Jewish law.

      I consider what he describes as having done as "collaborating."

      1. Why are you making judgement based on Jewish law? If you want to consider at 14-year-old culpable so you can vilify him as an adult, do so under your own standards.

        1. Agreed. I don't care what Jewish law says. The brains of 14 year old boys are so undeveloped that it's silly to treat them as adults. It seems inane to try to tar an 89 year old man as a Nazi because of something he said or did when he was 14, a Jewish child living in a country in which Jews were being exterminated.

          1. Eugene, it might be helpful if you stuck your 2 cents in here. As a child, you experienced anti-Semitism in a way that none of the rest of us have done. I have no problem with the legitimate criticism of Soros that appeared in the article, but I get pretty upset when he's called a Nazi.

            1. For the most part, Prof. Volokh ignores commenters like Ed, and I wish the rest of you would as well. Perhaps he would then comment less.

          2. So, I don't really care about this issue overall, and I think you are correct that Soros is not "a Nazi."

            But if you are going to defend his actions on the basis that he was only 14 years old with an underdeveloped brain, that's not going to work. In the interview, where Soros looks to be around 70 years old, he is clearly saying that he's never regretted what he did at 14, has no guilt about it and does not feel it was wrong. He first offers the ghoulish, sociopathic reasoning that if it hadn't been him doing it, then someone else would have done it- "actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets" ! Slightly more palatably, he offers the defense that he wasn't directly involved in the actual confiscation of property (just complicit in the overall operation).

    2. Dr. Ed's video is interesting, I encourage people to watch it.

      Broadly speaking, there are three tranches of people:
      1)Those who are willingly, proactively evil: not just the Himmlers of the world, but those who enthusiastically volunteer to be camp guards or join the KKK or are professional muggers orwhatever.
      2)The vast middle of people who just try to get along and look out for number one. They don't join the Klan or SS, but they don't take a stand against them either.
      3)The righteous (e.g. among many others the members of the White Rose, ...) who do the righteous thing even at great personal cost.

      In the video, Soros puts himself squarely into tranche #2. That's not a disgrace - that's where most people are. But it's also less honorable than the (non trivial) number of people in tranche #3.

      Was it collaborating? Yes and no, like a lot of what went on in Occupied Europe. He doesn't deserve the honor of those in tranche #3, nor the opprobrium of those in tranche #1.

      And it has little to do with the political causes he supports (with which I generally disagree).

      1. Your analysis does not properly apply to someone when they're barely a teenager.

        1. Do you not think some do horrible things - you can find 14 year old murderers, after all? Do some 14 year olds not do great things? Do most not just muddle along in the middle?

          Is your objection that 14 year olds don't sort out like that, or that Soros' description should put him in other than the middle group?

          1. You just switched from people to actions.

            That's a telling switch - and you have to make it, because it's quite hard to argue that any 14-year-old is forever categorically willingly, proactively evil.

            1. I have no idea what you going on about.

              1. An adult may indeed fall into one of the three tranches of people you specify. Though I hesitate to say people cannot be redeemed.

                A child is not yet a full person, and thus while they may commit horrible acts (e.g. murder), calling them an evil *person* is premature.

                1. But Soros as an elderly man in the interview says he did nothing wrong.

                2. Your objection is that I didn't say 'Soros' actions at the time placed him in group 2 (but of course an individual's actions may vary in their morality over time, and so one's actions might be a group 2 action at one time and another time might place them in another group, and people can change over their lifetimes)'?

                  We're commenting on a blog, not proofreading contracts. You are quick to get your hackles up when someone reads an ambiguous comment of yours in anything but the most charitable way, but you don't tend toward a charitable reading of comments by others. It's a free country, of course, but I think that kind of tendentiousness is less likely to win converts to your causes than a more even handed approach. YMMV, of course.

          2. Age is also relative to IQ -- Soros is clearly quite intelligent and hence would have had the cognitive abilities of someone older than he.

      2. Interesting -- an analogy: sexual harassment in an earlier era.
        I can see it breaking down into three groups as you define them, but those in Group #2 aren't getting a pass.

        What struck me was that Soros had no regrets.

  4. ZeroHedge.com no longer permits any mention of Soros in its comments. (They instituted new rules after Google threatened to take away their ability to run ads, and this is one of the most visible results. They don't publish the rule, but just try it and the comment won't post.)

  5. How much longer can Soros really be a factor? He’s close to 90 now and only enjoying success because of Trump being so dislikeable. He’s also been pushing for drug decriminalization which most libertarians support.

  6. Don't criticise Soros because it's anti-semetic. See those follow-on comments that actually are?

    No, those are just some side cranks. Don't be distracted from the main point.

    Don't boycott Israel as it is anti-semetic. See those follow-on comments that actually are?

    No, those are just some side cranks. Don't be distracted from the main point.

    1. Is anyone here arguing that all criticism of Soros is antisemitic, as some argue with respect to all boycotts of Israel?

  7. When they say "Soros", they mean, of course, "Rothschild". And when they say "Rothschild", they mean "The Learned Elders of Zion". And when they say "The Learned Elders of Zion", they mean "Paul Singer". And when they say "Paul Singer", they mean, of course, "Emmanuel Goldstein". (((Whatever))).

  8. I don't know which is more disgusting: Soros collaborating with the Nazis or the attempts to rationalize it. Compare his active support for that monstrous evil with those brave adolescents who fought against Nazism -- in, for example, the Ehrenfeld Group and the Edelweiss Pirates. For their "crimes," some had their heads shaved, some were sent to concentration camps, others were hanged.

Please to post comments