On Fairness

  You are a bad person

Huh? What have I done.

 You don't let me buy up your country's assets.

 wtf  

Advisor: Mr Soros stay to the script please.

 Yeah sorry. I mean you are an autocrat. Yours is not an Open Society™

Hey hey. I just won an election, mind you.  

Oh, but that doesn't count.


What's that supposed to mean. I don't enjoy this, you know? I spent a helluva lot of money organizing this whole election thing, and I didn't even rig it this time. No ballot stuffing, all clean. Damn, I even put cameras in every booth.

 Still not fair.


Why not? Surkov told me that democracy is about people voting freely for their leaders. Well, we have that. What else do I have to do for you to shut up?

Oh, we will never shut up until you release my co-ethnic ex-mafia oligarch who you put in jail.

 Mr Soros, the script!!!

 Oh yes sorry. Russia is not a democracy because you control the media, and that's not fair.


But somebody has to control the media. Before I cleaned it up it was a whole mess, with each billionaire owning a station and promoting their own shit. It subverts the power of the state. I can't allow that.

We call that the Free Marketplace of Ideas. The media must be free of government interference.


But then somebody might buy the media and use it to promote its own interests.

 No shit.


With enough money you can manipulate the populace into believing

whatever piece of bullshit you come up with, and play  the people against the government.

The media is a business like any other, ruled by supply and demand. The stations will broadcast whatever the people demand. And the people's demand is supreme.


Yeah right, that's why the American media promotes

mass immigration and fag lib while the people are consistently against it.

 That's raciss.


You will even demand that I open Russia's media market to foreign capital, right?

 But of course. Protectionism is bad for you.


So foreign billionaires can buy up Russian media and use it to promote their interests.

 Yup.

So after all this money and effort spent on election campaigns,  

I'm an autocrat because my control of the media gives my candidacy an advantage over the others.

Yes. You see, it's not fair. You get more coverage.

So what I'm supposed to do?  

Oh well, it's obvious. Abolish all media controls and let the market decide.

 

So let me get this straight. If I, the Russian government,

use the force of the state to control the media, I'm an autocrat.

If foreign financiers use their money to control the media, it's real democracy.

 Exactly! You're a bright fellow.

Go to hell.  

 Soon enough sonny, soon enough.

Have you heard the news about the Russian propaganda law in St. Petersburg? It's just one city, it's not the whole country: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/29/russia-gay-idINDEE81S0GR20120229

Nice cartoon, but again... if it's in the end all about financiers, then whence the whole ideological package? What's the interest in promoting multiculturalism, gay lib, environmentalism, AIDS activism, etc., etc., with a strict party line on every point? Moreover, why is the OpenSociety(TM) perfectly OK with tax-financed state media if they only push the whole ideological line strictly and consistently, like the BBC? And how come that there is such perfect ideological uniformity across the MSM regardless of whether they are private or state-run? You can't possibly claim that the BBC is somehow swayed by the money in the media business. I don't think any of this can be explained by mere financial interest.

I don't mean that Soros cooked up leftism as a cover for his interests. Leftism qua leftism is a religious movement with its own origin and dynamics. But the whole point of Soros & friends pushing democracy to foreign countries is a plot to gain access to financial markets. OpenSociety doesn't give a shit about any countries media or its ideological bent, as long as financial markets are open and OpenSociety can invest its money there. Japan is less leftist than China in any measure that matters, yet it's left alone, because the Nikkei is half foreign-owned. If China opened its financial sector to Wall Street, Tibetans could be mass murdered in the streets and you wouldn't even hear about it.

See, I come from ex-Yugoslavia, and I've seen this process first hand. Ever since Yugoslavia disintegrated, the elites in its successor states have been split between the nationalist strongman crooks and the proteges of the State Dept./EU/Soros-run "NGOs." (With the OpenSociety(TM) especially prominent and active.) Unsurprisingly, the latter have gained an upper hand in recent years, including in Croatia, where I lived. And believe me, what I see these people pushing is sheer ideology, not any sort of business interest. They are hell-bent on introducing and enforcing every single article of the PC/Universalist orthodoxy, often with that grimly comical provincialist zeal. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, when the nationalist crooks were firmly in charge, they were perfectly willing to sell off the whole country cheap to foreign money, and did so. If anything, the NGO crowd will make such bleeding of the country dry more difficult. And there's no way they'd be content with an ideologically impure regime, no matter how open for business and willing to sell everything off it might be. Why on Earth would Soros and the like do this out of any financial interest? The country is now firmly in the hands of the OpenSociety(TM). Even if you disagree that it would have been cheaper and easier to just pay off the nationalist mafiosos, why are they still expending vast resources to force social reengineering and cultural revolution from above on all issues where PC/Universalism has a strong position? I really don't see how all this can possibly make sense if the motivation behind Soros and the like isn't genuine ideology, at least to a large extent.

Ok, now you're talking. Interesting perspective. I understand what you're saying. But surely Soros doesn't look like an ideological zealot, and has never said or thought much about it himself. Nor any of his financier pals. If he were pouring vast resources to attain some ideological goal, he'd be more outspoken about it. The whole secrecy betrays an uneasy conscience. Maybe Soros et al. have calculations made, and have concluded that it´s better business over the long term to progressivise a country and strip it of any modicum of sovereignty and common sense. I don´t know the mechanism. But the financial elite has been doing good. It certainly doesn't look like Soros has been leaving money on the table. And holy he is not; the media is not as sycophantic as his funding of liberal causes should merit. In any case my condolences about your country. It must have been hard to see the process first hand.

Thanks for the condolences. Basically, the problem is that we haven't been ruled by people with some minimum of responsibility and character ever since the breakup of Austria-Hungary. It's all been a prolonged agony since then, with a promenade of gangsters and ideological crazies (not mutually exclusive categories) in charge. (On the other hand, the crowd that's now in charge is preparing open borders, which will be a point of no return unlike any previous one.) Your posts have been a grimly humorous reminder of how in the 1990s, when the nationalist gangsters were in charge, they used "mercenaries of Soros" as a term of abuse for the pro-Western, left-liberal, NGO-supported opposition. They were in turn derided for this as crazy conspiracists, although of course their primitive instincts were correct in a way they'd never be able to understand fully. (As you might guess, they ran a shameless kleptocracy while spouting nationalist rhetoric, and did this with such insolence and hubris that one was hard-pressed not to develop sympathies for the NGO crowd -- especially since the latter are, just like in the West, careful not to talk too far beyond the present Overton window at any given moment.) From my perspective, the situation looks like there is genuine ideological zeal among the Western elites for imposing contemporary Western-style left-liberalism, with all its ideological implications, on all countries that belong to what would have been called Christendom some centuries ago. In turn, the domestic elites of the targeted countries are wooed by a perfect combination of status-whoring and patronage. Soros in particular is completely open about his workings in this regard -- just go to soros.org, type in the name of any country, and you'll get a list of ongoing activities. Why do you think is he interested in -- to take a random example -- "Promoting Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Communities" health initiative in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro? What possible financial interest can exist there? You could invent some convoluted explanation how he's promoting progressivism and decadence as a long-term subversive strategy. But to me, the simplest explanation is that he's buying status, prestige, and warm feelings of self-righteousness by doing what the elites genuinely see as beneficence and enlightenment. I mean, Gilded Age plutocrats also knew how to make money, but they spent their money in a similar manner, except of course that the elite tastes and status-markers have changed a lot since then.

"the crowd that’s now in charge is preparing open borders, which will be a point of no return unlike any previous one" I have some experience with this one. It happened overnight. And yes, there's no return. European nations are dead, they have been murdered, and there's little we can do about it. This surely isn't a single issue conspiracy. Of course there's is a strong push into dissolving European nations into some sort of Savonarolan ideological pure land. And many resources are being used on this. Soros is paying for fag lib in EE, for antidiscrimination of gypsies. You say he does it because he believes in the Cathedral crap. I say he is or deeply hostile to European nations (not unlikely in a EE Jew). Or else he doesn't even know what his foundation is doing. It's staffed by Cathedral minions, he just funnels the money in so he can buy some goodwill from the Cathedral priesthood. I don't see how he profits from that. Check out his website today: "Legal Aid for Rape Survivors in Congo". Legal aid? Is there any functional court system in Congo? It's beyond ridiculous. He has to be kidding. My point wasn't about his whole activity, or the whole QUANGO/ Foundation-funded NGO (which do basically the same things). Mine was a particular insight about the push for democracy into non western nations. There's big money to be made there. If Soros has to pay for Gipsy transexuals discrimination lawsuits in Slovenia to get permission to destabilize Burma or Russia; I think that's a good deal. For all I know you may even be right: they're true believers, agents of Satan. But I am more cynical. I think it shows.

It's pretty disturbing that Russia is the last best hope for what used to be called (unironically) the white race: http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2012/03/escaping-putins-russia-hard-way.html: If it weren't for the wife and the dogs I'd go back to smoking.

I wouldn't count on them.

"… if it’s in the end all about financiers, then whence the whole ideological package? What’s the interest in promoting multiculturalism, gay lib, environmentalism, AIDS activism, etc., etc., with a strict party line on every point?" You've heard of this 'Jewish problem', right?

The financier problem sounds suspiciously similar to the Jewish problem. I don't believe it. We are seeing a political religion, a religious political movement. It cares about gay rights and curbing science and technology and saving the trees and stuff. It is not acting out of self interest, but rather is a movement of holy fanatics that tends to install ever holier fanatics in power. To attribute this movement to self interest is like attributing Bolshevism to Jewish self interest. The Jewish Bolsheviks systematically murdered each other because they hated Jews, therefore Bolshevism was not a reflection of Jewish self interest, and "The open society" (open only to certain ideas and completely closed to others) is not a reflection of financier self interest.

"They may be true believers, agents of Satan" It is more complex than that. To get the political power required to steal lots of money, you really have to believe in all this crap, or do a really convincing imitation thereof. It is perfectly obvious that John Corzine was in one sense a cynical hypocrite who believed all this stuff so he could steal lots of money, yet he actually believed this stuff, and by continuing to believe it at the wrong moment, lost all the money he stole. He believed because it was profitable to believe, and was primarily interested in making a whacking great profit at the expense of other people, and yet, he really did believe.

>James The fact that some are true believers agents of Satan doesn't mean that all of them are. I don't know if Corzine is a true believer. Maybe he is. Doesn't mean Soros is. And also note how Corzine is not in jail or broke or suffering much about losing all that money. Which wasn't his. There's a lot of profit in being a believer, true or not. About jews of course there is no united front, jews being very fond of fighting each other. Doesn't mean they don't gang up sometimes when their interests do coincide. And they tend to be dangerous when that happens.

Soros, not necessarily a true believer. Jon Corzine and Kerry Killinger definitely true believers, since they committed enormous crimes for the cause which crimes caused them to personally lose money and be blamed, even though they are in no danger of the jail time they richly deserve. To you “Legal Aid for Rape Survivors in Congo” is so obviously absurd that Soros cannot possibly be serious, but if you ask anyone who is inside the official overton window, or pretends to be, he will see nothing odd about such an obviously noble cause. You and I know that when the Belgian government fled the Congo, no government replaced it. The supposed government of the Congo has no power to govern, merely to ravage and destroy, merely some thugs in the pay of the Cathedral who ravage the place from time to time to maintain the pretense that they govern so that they can continue to collect foreign aid, and actual Congo governance is done by small scale tribal gangs and militias, with a social organization intermediate between that of a chimp troop and that of normal humans. (Tutsi militias have fully human organization, though small scale and tribal, but the rest of them not so much) But to notice this is just unthinkably politically incorrect. Not only does Soros not know this, or at least pretend not to know it but know one he knows could possibly admit to knowing it either. Officially, the collapse of the Congo was a great victory for enlightenment and progress, and a huge advance in human civilization, and if you show signs of doubting this most people will be so incredulous that they will not comprehend what you are talking about. So of course legal aid for rape victims is perfectly reasonable. Everyone knows the Congo has been run by decent enlightened progressives ever since those horrid murderous colonialists were chased out. The only thing wrong with Congo governance is that it needs to be even more decent, enlightened, and progressive, and the Soros foundation is right on the job of making that happen.

"Know one he knows", should of course have read "no one he knows"

Sir you do have a way with words. It's curious the case of the Tutsi. You could make the argument that their being non-Bantu means a higher IQ, but other Nilotics are not known by their ability to organize themselves. I guess the Tutsi being a landowning aristocracy produced selective pressure for excellence. You need capable people to police the serfs.

There are two independent things going on. Big finance currently has the ability to steal money by the metric ton, and it wants to keep and expand that power. Liberal democracy, so far, has been an extremely good system for big finance. There is no King who might decide one day to just expropriate the parasites, and the democratic system is (or has become) pretty easy for the masters of the universe to manage. Liberal democracy's enabling ideological system is therefore useful to finance. That system comes as a package, though, and finance does not really care what the other aspects of the package are---they just want the morons "in charge" and firmly attached to tame media. If the guys running the media want to promote sodomy, single motherhood, and hatred of whites, so what? So, this is the second thing going on. Right now, liberal democracy comes packaged with deranged cultural Marxism because 1) there are lots of true-believing cultural Marxists who are willing to do the indoctrination on the cheap(er) and who positively enjoy the idea of goyish proles's faces ground into the dirt, and, 2) it's no skin off big finance's nose for this to happen. In short, I think the dialogue is right on the money, but that the underlying dynamics are a little more complex than it reveals.

The financier problem sounds suspiciously similar to the Jewish problem. I don’t believe it.

And the lack of a Congo government problem sounds suspiciously like the justification for Jim Crow. In both cases, there are actual facts which can help us decide what is true. Finance has grown insanely wealthy since the 1970s without any conspicuous contribution to the rest of society. It is, in fact, insanely wealthy and powerful right now. Conducting instantaneous coups of large, European countries is pretty impressive. Getting the EU to declare that the Greek default is not, for legal, CDS purposes, a default is pretty impressive. Theories of current events which do not assign a major role to big finance seem delusional.

Little to add here.

"Finance has grown insanely wealthy since the 1970s without any conspicuous contribution to the rest of society. "

Again, let us look at what happened with Washington Mutual. Some of the money that was pissed away was pissed away to high IQ white male financiers with degrees from elite universities, but most of the money that was pissed away was pissed away on the target (Mexicans) and on loan officers, mortgage brokers, and assorted small time crooks, few of whom had every been anywhere near an elite institution. The typical guy who got the money was the white male yuppie who over invested in housing, but then when the time came to panic, had his illiterate no hablo English illegal immigrant Mexican gardener sign papers he could not read buying the yuppie's properties at a million dollars each, signing more papers he could not read wherein the loan officer, in perfect English, attributes a claim of huge income and huge assets to the illitarate Mexican gardener. He then signs more papers agreeing to take on a stupendously huge mortgage, and gets a few thousand dollars under the table. In the end, the Mexicans stole most of the money, but the yuppies stole most of the money back from the Mexicans, while the high IQ white male financiers from elite universities only skimmed a percentage from the operation. A very large proportion of the money that was pissed away was pissed away on Mexicans by Kerry Killinger and Angelo Mozilo, who were clearly true believers. Towards the end, Goldman Sachs obviously were not true believers, for they were frantically trying to unload their toxic assets on those that still were true believers - but towards the end means they panicked in 2007, whereas everyone I know panicked in November 2005, so Goldman Sachs shared the delusion and only woke up when it was horribly obvious that everything was falling apart. The sane unloaded their toxic assets early in 2006, back when enough true believers remained that it was easy to unload dud assets. That Goldman Sachs did not panic until 2007 shows that they drank the koolaid, but threw up in time.

"Theories of current events which do not assign a major role to big finance seem delusional."

Well of course, but the role is that the Cathedral requires that members of big finance be composed of members of the Cathedral, and all members of the Cathedral are required to drink the koolaid. The question is are they evil, insane, or evil and insane? And the answer is that all of them are insane, and some of them are evil and insane, but madness rather than evil is the big problem. Interpreting this as sane financial operation run to steal money is as foolish as interpreting Bolshevism as a Jewish plot. Bolshevism *was* a Jewish plot, yet the Jewish Bolsheviks wound up murdering each other and electing non Jews over them, thus in this sense, not a Jewish plot, not a Jewish plot in the sense of being a sane approach to advancing the interest of Jews, or even a sane approach to advancing the interests of some Jews at the expense of others. Jewish Bolsheviks were not advancing a sinister and clever Jewish plot for world domination. They were evil and insane, but for the most part, insane, full of the madness so eloquently depicted in the long telegram. And so it is with financiers. Kerry Killinger was crazy. Angelo Mozilo was crazy. Goldman Sach was sane in that they woke up in the nick of time, crazy in that they woke up alarmingly late. Your cartoon depicts the script as pious madness, with Soros deviating from the script in ways that show he is sane and has not internalized the script. I think he has internalized the script, and sincerely believes it so long as it does not get too much in the way of making money.

'The question is are they evil, insane, or evil and insane? And the answer is that all of them are insane, and some of them are evil and insane, but madness rather than evil is the big problem.' The problem IMHO is not psychotic insanity so much as what is now called "personality disorder." A presumably non-Jewish fellow posted about his "violent personality" at the following link: http://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012/03/01/call-of-apathy-violent-young-men-and-our-place-in-war/ I strongly suggest perusal of that brief article. It explains why sane people commit atrocious crimes. I think it has a bearing on recent famous criminals like Jonathan Pollard and Bernie Madoff.