A Teenage George Soros Aided the Holocaust
This (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/soros_beck_and_the_holocaust.html) managed to shock me. And it could go a long way toward explaining the very hostile attitude of Democratic financier George Soros toward the State of Israel -- and his very friendly attitude toward Obamacare, including its provision for "death panels."
Dunn mentions that not only was a 14-year-old Soros involved (presumably at that age, as a messenger) in handing deportation orders to Jewish families, but also, even worse:
In fact, there's considerably more to it. Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels -- clothing, furniture, and the like -- for shipment to Germany. We have this on the highest authority, from an eyewitness of unimpeachable status: Soros himself. During a 1998 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation, He also stated that he felt no guilt, adding that the situation cannot be understood be anyone who was not there.
Now, actually, I both know enough history and have had wide enough personal social experience (*) to understand exactly what Soros meant by this. Hungary was one of the German Minor Allies, and the regime of Admiral Horthy was both pro-German by choice and very much under Hitler's thumb. Aside from the fact that the young Soros was probably just going along with the crowd, had he refused such work, he would have been branding himself as politically unreliable to an authoritarian regime at a very dangerous time.
It's more than a bit interesting, though, that Soros claimed "that he felt no guilt." This implies that he either believes that the majority in any society always defined good and evil, or that anything is acceptable in order to reduce one's own personal risk. The first belief would be amoral, and the second quite selfish.
What bothers me more is this ...
Then, in what might be called typical Soros style, he concludes by comparing his cooperation with the Nazis with his later activities in the markets.
... because it makes me really doubt his business ethics, if he considers that his own behavior in the market place was no more evil than his aiding and abetting of mass murder. And it also makes me wonder just what he now does, that arouses no guilt in his heart.
===
(*) I once (decades ago) knew an elderly Hungarian-American couple, whose names (for obvious reasons) I refuse to reveal, who when young actually worked at a death camp during World War II. As they explained to me, they had little choice in the matter -- they had been sent there as part of a labor draft from Hungary to her German ally, and (unlike German citizens) would probably have been shot on the spot had they refused this duty. Whether or not they felt "guilty" about their involvement in the Holocaust is hard to say: they were not particularly anti-Semitic, and it was obvious that they were scarred by the experience.
===
Dunn then concludes:
There's something terribly wrong here. This is not the way a benefactor of humanity actually behaves. It's as if Gandhi financed his independence movement through a network of casinos, or Martin Luther King sat on the councils of Murder Incorporated. What can the explanation be?
I believe that it can be found in Budapest in 1944. The Holocaust left deep and lasting scars on all who survived it, scars that often acted to cripple their psyches for decades afterward, if not for their entire lifetimes. It's highly unlikely that George Soros is an exception. Did the brutalization of those days find a response in buccaneer raids on the financial markets? Did the memories of what he was forced to do transform him into one of those creatures who "loves humanity and hates human beings"? Is he now little more than a shattered clockwork figure attempting in his twilight years to "do good" without the vaguest notion of what such a concept might entail?
I concur, and point out that Soros is clearly not a man to be trusted.
Dunn mentions that not only was a 14-year-old Soros involved (presumably at that age, as a messenger) in handing deportation orders to Jewish families, but also, even worse:
In fact, there's considerably more to it. Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels -- clothing, furniture, and the like -- for shipment to Germany. We have this on the highest authority, from an eyewitness of unimpeachable status: Soros himself. During a 1998 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation, He also stated that he felt no guilt, adding that the situation cannot be understood be anyone who was not there.
Now, actually, I both know enough history and have had wide enough personal social experience (*) to understand exactly what Soros meant by this. Hungary was one of the German Minor Allies, and the regime of Admiral Horthy was both pro-German by choice and very much under Hitler's thumb. Aside from the fact that the young Soros was probably just going along with the crowd, had he refused such work, he would have been branding himself as politically unreliable to an authoritarian regime at a very dangerous time.
It's more than a bit interesting, though, that Soros claimed "that he felt no guilt." This implies that he either believes that the majority in any society always defined good and evil, or that anything is acceptable in order to reduce one's own personal risk. The first belief would be amoral, and the second quite selfish.
What bothers me more is this ...
Then, in what might be called typical Soros style, he concludes by comparing his cooperation with the Nazis with his later activities in the markets.
... because it makes me really doubt his business ethics, if he considers that his own behavior in the market place was no more evil than his aiding and abetting of mass murder. And it also makes me wonder just what he now does, that arouses no guilt in his heart.
===
(*) I once (decades ago) knew an elderly Hungarian-American couple, whose names (for obvious reasons) I refuse to reveal, who when young actually worked at a death camp during World War II. As they explained to me, they had little choice in the matter -- they had been sent there as part of a labor draft from Hungary to her German ally, and (unlike German citizens) would probably have been shot on the spot had they refused this duty. Whether or not they felt "guilty" about their involvement in the Holocaust is hard to say: they were not particularly anti-Semitic, and it was obvious that they were scarred by the experience.
===
Dunn then concludes:
There's something terribly wrong here. This is not the way a benefactor of humanity actually behaves. It's as if Gandhi financed his independence movement through a network of casinos, or Martin Luther King sat on the councils of Murder Incorporated. What can the explanation be?
I believe that it can be found in Budapest in 1944. The Holocaust left deep and lasting scars on all who survived it, scars that often acted to cripple their psyches for decades afterward, if not for their entire lifetimes. It's highly unlikely that George Soros is an exception. Did the brutalization of those days find a response in buccaneer raids on the financial markets? Did the memories of what he was forced to do transform him into one of those creatures who "loves humanity and hates human beings"? Is he now little more than a shattered clockwork figure attempting in his twilight years to "do good" without the vaguest notion of what such a concept might entail?
I concur, and point out that Soros is clearly not a man to be trusted.