It’s a self indulgent argument, he chose himself over others. His career is an exact replica of that time period, he chose to benefit himself at the cost of others because “someone else would have done it.” It’s an irrational argument of wolves to justify their slaughter of sheep.
I easily could have gone the same route he did, it’s not exactly difficult to make a living fucking other people over. The difference is in what a person values, I’m Faustian by nature, so the pursuit of learning holds the most sway to me. This is why I joined the military, why I spent time in the poorest countries in the world, and why I was obsessed with the human condition since I was little. I graduated high school with a 1.7 GPA because the way schools taught and their materials bored me, I concurrently got a 32 on my ACT. Soros chose to make people suffer, he intentionally crashed markets and financed the mass immigration from the third world, this was not done out of indifference, but malice. Even the most milquetoast individual is capable of great cruelty through indifference, but they do not seek to do things cruelly.
I’m not arguing the morality of what he did during the Holocaust, but the actions he took after. He repeatedly did the exact same thing he did in the Holocaust for personal gain, the only lesson he learned from that time was to be the one receiving others property, not the middle man.
I think Soros was like 10-13 or something when this happened. I don't hate a scared Jewish boy for helping the Nazis while stuck under their thumb. It's the fact that any decent person would feel some guilt about it- he doesn't. Just like he doesn't feel bad about all the people being hurt, raped and even killed as a direct result of his helping violent criminals walk the street.
I don't think most humans would do what he did. Most humans at the time made a run for it, screwed over the system, did the minimal possible or turned traitor as soon as it became possible. The Nazi's had it pretty bad in terms of people being loyal. Italy basically overthrew itself as soon as it became relevant. Operations in France were never good and loads of German staff tried to kill Hitler and disarm the SS.
Many people like to point out that the superior orders defence aka the Nuremberg defence could help protect you since you're just doing your job but the defence immediately collapses one you have a moral choice. There was no gun to his head, there was no shielding of the information. He knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it. We can see now that loads of people are happy to be fired over not taking a vaccine, these are the people who are under tough times and yet they are not compliant and taking the vaccine wouldn't kill anyone under most circumstances (but so would not taking it but that's besides the point). Most people would not be happy or even willing to do Soro's job and that's not even commenting on what he does at the present.
It’s a self indulgent argument, he chose himself over others. His career is an exact replica of that time period, he chose to benefit himself at the cost of others because “someone else would have done it.” It’s an irrational argument of wolves to justify their slaughter of sheep.
I easily could have gone the same route he did, it’s not exactly difficult to make a living fucking other people over. The difference is in what a person values, I’m Faustian by nature, so the pursuit of learning holds the most sway to me. This is why I joined the military, why I spent time in the poorest countries in the world, and why I was obsessed with the human condition since I was little. I graduated high school with a 1.7 GPA because the way schools taught and their materials bored me, I concurrently got a 32 on my ACT. Soros chose to make people suffer, he intentionally crashed markets and financed the mass immigration from the third world, this was not done out of indifference, but malice. Even the most milquetoast individual is capable of great cruelty through indifference, but they do not seek to do things cruelly.
I’m not arguing the morality of what he did during the Holocaust, but the actions he took after. He repeatedly did the exact same thing he did in the Holocaust for personal gain, the only lesson he learned from that time was to be the one receiving others property, not the middle man.
I think Soros was like 10-13 or something when this happened. I don't hate a scared Jewish boy for helping the Nazis while stuck under their thumb. It's the fact that any decent person would feel some guilt about it- he doesn't. Just like he doesn't feel bad about all the people being hurt, raped and even killed as a direct result of his helping violent criminals walk the street.
I don't think most humans would do what he did. Most humans at the time made a run for it, screwed over the system, did the minimal possible or turned traitor as soon as it became possible. The Nazi's had it pretty bad in terms of people being loyal. Italy basically overthrew itself as soon as it became relevant. Operations in France were never good and loads of German staff tried to kill Hitler and disarm the SS.
Many people like to point out that the superior orders defence aka the Nuremberg defence could help protect you since you're just doing your job but the defence immediately collapses one you have a moral choice. There was no gun to his head, there was no shielding of the information. He knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it. We can see now that loads of people are happy to be fired over not taking a vaccine, these are the people who are under tough times and yet they are not compliant and taking the vaccine wouldn't kill anyone under most circumstances (but so would not taking it but that's besides the point). Most people would not be happy or even willing to do Soro's job and that's not even commenting on what he does at the present.