Can you elaborate the above statement? Which side are the "Soros' puppets" in this conflict?
I get the mental need for conspiracy theories to have satisfying but ultimately unprovable and nebulous actors that enact the acts theorised about; lizard people? Sure great. A worldwide paedosexual cabal? Why not. But George Soros? Is it the combination of being rich, Jewish, progressive, somewhat influential, and also foreign enough to pin on any theory one likes? I guess the name-dropping by nationalist autocratic leaders doesn't help either.
Aung San Suu Kyi is photographed with Soros. Open Society bank accounts seem legitimate. I'm not on either side here.
I'm frustrated by the top level for throwing out a wild accusation. I'm also frustrated by the other replies, who leap on without due diligence.
The literally anti-democratic Myanmarese military regime shutting down any initiatives that promote forms of democracy makes perfect sense from their point of view.
Being able to point to Soros and such is convenient for a junta, because it makes it look as if democracy (or whatever 'western' value they don't like) is an import imposed on them rather than the grass-roots development it is.
For instance: what if it’s aliens? What if it’s the mice-people? What if it’s mind control by giant squid? What if it’s a conspiracy being lead by the silica gel industry?
Do you want to do your due diligence on those, or would you discard them out of hand as patently ridiculous?
The lesson was supposed to show you should have not assumed "aliens", when it is actually "reality".
I want people to adjust their nuance, but that seems difficult.
Though I gues these days I'm hearing that Bill Gates is microchipping vaccines for to control people. Lol
For comparison, the other multi-multi-billionaires are pretty plain when it comes to their standing on the "intelligentsia" scale. They're pretty good at making money, that's for sure (Soros is, too), but I don't see myself having hours-long conversations about Hobbes, Locke or Mandeville with the likes of Gates, Bezos or the two Google guys, while I'm pretty sure a guy like Soros has read very interesting books like Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" (and has actively learned from it) in his early age.
And if you want to control the world "from behind the curtains" you need your Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli.
And yes, in the very long run people who read more have a more lasting influence (and you could say their ideas “control” the world more) compared to the people who have lots of money, that’s why nowadays Machiavelli is still actively discussed while the Fuggers are mostly just an interesting Wikipedia entry.
Additionally, you should put Soros into the Hedge Funds billionaires group. I don't think there are many of those that "get a free pass", they're usually disliked.
On that point you're wrong.
Buffett played a role in abortion being legal in the US and is financially the single largest individual promoter of abortion access & rights in the US (and world). He has done his fair share of meddling, whether one agrees with it or not (I'm pro-choice, but that's irrelevant to the point; Buffett is merely quiet about his meddling, whenever possible). It's fair to say that Buffett helped to dramatically change US society through direct political action. Buffett has poured several billion dollars into pro-choice groups, direct abortion funding, abortion political efforts, etc.
For example, from Vox [1]:
"This is how we’ve arrived at a point where Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the biggest philanthropists in the world, are the leading providers of access to contraception worldwide, and Buffett is the leading provider of abortion access for poor women in the U.S."
"The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the late wife of hedge fund billionaire Warren Buffett, is also the biggest funder of access to abortion for low-income women in the United States." [the foundation's money stems from Warren's wealth creation and it appears that Warren's efforts over the decades toward abortion were likely inspired partially by Susan; Buffett also has publicly stated that he greatly fears over-population]
"Bloomberg reports that Buffett has avoided publicity for his work on IUDs and access to birth control, because of fears that it’d damage his reputation in the investment world where he made his fortune. When he began his work on access to contraception, it was a taboo topic, and in many circles it still is."
In his biography, The Snowball, it's noted that Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger created a major abortion organization (later merged with Planned Parenthood), which assisted women in getting access to abortion services prior to Roe v. Wade. And then Munger (as a lawyer) and Buffett (financial backing) were both involved in supporting People v. Belous, which helped make Roe v. Wade possible.
[1] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/17/20754970/billio...
That's what I'm talking about though, and abortions is a single issue, not a "society should be run this way" ideology. Buffet isn't running around sitting in the spotlight talking about how society should function etc. Soros is, that's why Soros gets push back and Buffet does not.
Murdoch might be a case similar to Soros on the right. And he's definitely not getting a free pass.
An army of useful idiots picks them up and spreads them worldwide, lowering the rate of people who will accept help from Gates the presumed supervillain. Partial success.