es jau arī neesmu tīrs latvietis, tā ka man tas pats.
blakus logā stāv šis raksts par jaunajiem „”the new normal” normāņiem – tēvoci džordžu un Sazerlendu:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/23893-hacked-docs-expose-soros-obama-un-refugee-invasion-network?tmpl=component&print=1

(Reply to this) (Thread)

biju aptuveni lietas kursā - un kaut arī tas ir bedīgi apspriest cilvēkus kā politiskiem bandiniekiem, vai film 'Pirmie' nebija viens no pirmājiem Tēvoci Džordža dāsnuma saņēmējiem? Ja maldos, piedod.. un vispār piedod... es vnk cenšos saprast vai bija sākums šiem janajiem normāņiem.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Jūs vispār to sākotnējo leaked reportu izlasījāt?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Jesus - almost done - my critical knowledge gaps are being filled - do people talk like this to their mothers?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I am afraid they might.

However, my point was that as far as I could read into that hacked report, the report-makers were basically trying to say that:

(a) the current state of migration is bad from their point of view mainly because there are lots of human rights violations happening to the migrants AND the governments do not see migration as the global phenomenon that the report-makers believe it to be;
(b) that they want to change the policies of governments, so that the attitude towards migration would change (as far as I could read, in the direction of better support for migrants' human rights);
(c) that the current migration levels (including refugees) are going to stay with us, so we should be better prepared for them in long-term.

That seemed to be it. But maybe I am wrong, and perhaps you can read into it better and discover some nefarious tendencies or hints of them, at least.

Because the New American seems to have simply drawn the wonderful conclusion: "you talk about migration therefore you created it".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I promise to read it thoroughly and poke about for the nefarious stuff - I actually quite enjoy this sort of thing. Trouble is real life like putting the kids to bed (coming dear), meeting deadlines and so on just gets in the way. Basically though, there is suspicion that migration to Europe is being encouraged, and support for it is being nurtured through Soros agencies. Without entering into a heated debate about it right now, I think there is some truth to that assertion.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I only wonder what would be the purpose of this purported nurture by Sorosites.

My impression so far was that international migration was a very lucrative criminal business, which got enormous cash influx (and thus the ability to better bribe European officials, too), since the start of the Syrian conflict.

Which in turn has links to former Iraq secret police/service guys, who got pissed off after they were put down along with Hussein's regime, and thus have en masse turned to international business. Basically, something similar to what happened after KGB was disbanded -- but there at least was FSB to soak up many has-beens, which was not the case in Iraq.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Let me introduce you to the grinding war of attrition against nation states... :) Politically (federalism), economically (monetary policy and fiscal pacts), and now... demographically?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Waged by whom (G.Soros incarnate?) and with what purpose?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

On that note (a quavering question tremulously reverberating in the late August evening), I wish you a good night. Let us hope sleep can help elucidate the answer.

Seriously - got to be up at 5:30 to finish a deadline before taking the kids to the day of (helpfully) knowledge.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I shall dream of you explaining everything to me on a dark night in a shadow under the Stone bridge, while the Castle of Light glitters coldly in the black waters.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I await you. Bring a bottle (single malt). You shall transcribe the answer, place it in the emptied bottle and release it into the dark waters of the universal subconscious (for that is what it is) - whereupon it will spread the light of knowledge (in a random tidal-like manner) until all mankind is verily enlightened.

Of course it will be too late as we will, by then, be living in a Sorosian, dystopian nightmare of unfathomable nuance.

Ha ha or Boom boom as Basil Brush would say.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Soros, I think, will be long dead by then, as much more powerful players will have unleashed the havoc we can only shudder at now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

well that's just great

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Overtona loga ciršana nav gluži "you talk about migration"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

nu vot, tāpēc es saku -- apgaismojiet mani.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Saruna no propagandas atšķiras, un šeit ir runa par propagandu nevis sarunu.
Dzīvojot starp divām valstīm var ļoti uzskatāmi redzēt, kā pat tie paši propagandisti vienā valstī (Latvijā) cērt Overtona vēdlodziņu, bet otrā (Zviedrijā) jau stiklo astoņrūšu logus, ne mirkli nesajaucot, kur kāda retorika lietojama.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I think I have a more sceptical view. I will try to order a few of my thoughts:

It is important to remember that the IMI (International Migration Initiative) is a Soros institution. So when we lift citations such as the following from the text, we need to remember what Uncle George actually wants:

"“we should also be supporting actors in the field proactively seeking to change the policies, rules, and regulations that govern migration.” [there are many more in this vein - this will do for now]

What does George advocate?
"First , the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly — a principle that a qualified majority finally established at a Sept. 23 summit... Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide 15,000 euros ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health-care and education costs — and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity... to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a year, the EU needs to mobilize the private sector — NGOs, church groups and businesses — to act as sponsors.”

Let us be clear: many of these migrants are economic migrants; therefore, there is absolutely no reason why Europe should accept George's demands.

As most people are aware of this, a battle for the hearts and minds of the population is required, so when we see the IMI declares as its aim "... (to) strengthen civil society interventions in international policy debates", I remember the (propaganda) videos of Soros beneficiaries such as Providus, and the editorial slant of Ijab's Satori articles (indeed ALL Satori articles on this theme).

When I see the IMI state that "IMI’s access to the Sutherland team’s discussions has allowed us to keep civil society partners up-to-date on the latest developments, in order to inform advocacy and campaigning strategies prior to the events and to plan follow up actions."
I am reminded thet this is the Mr Sutherland is the gent (UN special representative for migration and Mr Blacktrouser's boss) who said "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states" [BBC]

This will do for now. Welcome your thoughts - it is not a conspiracy I am fully convinced by, but something smells wrong: in short, I feel the whiff of Soros-sponsored propaganda and I miss the mature worldly discussion of a phenomenon, which as you rightly point out, is, at some level, unavoidable and as old as humanity.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you, I didn't have time at the moment to reflect on this, but I read your pointers.

As far as I understand then, Soros and some other influential people think that a more federalized and mixed world without strict ethnical or national borders would be a good thing.

In fact, in their opinion then, it seems that Europe should become something much more like the US, would you agree?

While that was news to me (as I mentioned, I haven't been following the global politics), at least I see that their agenda and ideas are not intrinsically hidden. Of course, there would be some obscure ways on how they try to influence those in the power, however, the direction seems to be reasonably clear.

To be frank, I have to learn more before I decide for myself, whether such a goal is a bad or good idea.

My recent considerations on the movement, which by definition opposes the perceived Soros' way: nationallism, -- have led me to suspect that nationalism is valuable for preservation of a society and culture, while it is an underdog. If we take the example of Latvia, I think nationalism and the Awakening movement were principal in providing an opposition to the occupation and guiding Latvia towards self-determination.

However, after regaining independence, it seems to me that Latvian nationalism has turned rather ugly. The nationalists of today frequently emphasize external enemies, unreasonable levels of bigotry -- it has become more of an ideology of fear than survival.

Therefore, I am in two minds about the whole thing of federalization vs sovereignity, and would still need to absorb much more information.

At any rate, thank you for the extensive reply, it was quite interesting to learn a bit more about the stance of those people.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree and thanks for your thanks - I am as wary of some nationalist groups as I am suspicious of federalists (or globalists).

But, I am quite rigid on one thing: I despise the commonly held assumption among the intelligentsia (and wanna-be-considered educated) that there is a point of view that is indicative of intelligence, rationality and erudition - and an opposing point of view that is suggestive of stupidity, paranoia and being conspiracy-theory prone.
I mention this because you can see the Brexit campaign (federalism vs nationalism) as a clear example of this. Considering a Leave Vote? you must be thick or racist (and clearly white). The migrant crisis debate is similar here in Latvia - if the articles in Satori are anything to go by.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That seems to be quite true, yes.

Instead of rational consideration of arguments, intelligentsia too frequently seems to be just as prone to ritual discourse as the rest of us. Unfortunately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Ījabam ir kaut kāda tāda pretencioza runas maniere Grūti uzspiest pirkstu uz tās detaļas, kas tieši to izsauc. Englanderu mēlē tuvākais laikam būtu vārds ''posh''.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Tad jūs (latvieši) arī to dzīrd? Tas ir labi... 'pompous' man liekas ir labāk.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Arī it kā, lai gan man šķiet viņš nemaz necenšas tā skanēt, bet balss tā locās. Cik atceros, man viņa uzskati (vai drīzāk to trūkums0 parasti nepatika, bet tā runāšanas maniere šķiet ir izdzimta, nevis speciāli piekopta.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

locīšanās nav tikai izdzimta, jo gadu gaitā piekopusies arvien lokanāk

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Atvaino, trollēju. Ījabs 1935 teica tā:
"Viena no visvīrišķākām nācijām ir angļi, un tie tagad vai visi ir pārvērtušies zēnos, kas dīdās pa apsauli, kas līdz kapam nododas medībām, makšķerēšanai, sportam un līdzīgām tīri zēniskām darbībām un interesēm. Pavisam citādi izturas sievietiskās nācijas, kā žīdi, indieši un ķīnieši."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Labs - we are, you know, good sports!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Somebody must have loved him way too much.

Nē, skaties kā 3:40 atdzīvojas.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Savukārt, no 13:00 līdz 14:30 laideni pāriet uz smalku šļupstēšanu.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ilggadīgs galma dirsējs viņš ir

visu vēl nenoklausījos, bet pašā sākumā izvēršs interesantu dihotomiju starp "uzņēmējdarbību, kas nes labumu sabiedrībai" un "to, kura primāri domā par peļņu". interesanti, man likās, ka peļņa ir labs indikātors tam, ka sabiedrībai uzņēmuma preces vai pakalpojumi ir nepieciešami, tāpēc viņi ir gatavi tos iegādāties apmaiņā pret naudu.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

nu, nu izstāsti smalkāk šo peļņa pret vērtību pozīciju. skat, piemēram ja vērtība ir tavas (slimnieka) dzīvības saglabāšana:

" insulin which "in 2001 had the wholesale price of $45. By last year, the cost had skyrocketed to $1,447" for the same monthly supply"
http://mtstandard.com/news/local/insulin-price-spike-leaves-diabetes-patients-in-crisis/article_74cd6b23-7d9d-5f36-9df0-9c72c5de9f1a.html


"A two pack EpiPen now costs about $600. The device, however, was not always this costly. The price was only about $100 in 2008, but this has since increased by more than 450 percent."
"Mylan pharmaceutical, the company behind the product, said that EpiPen's increasing prices "reflect important product features and the value the product provides."
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/174396/20160820/epipen-price-skyrockets-what-is-epipen-why-is-it-so-expensive-and-where-can-we-get-cheaper-alternative.htm

"Epinephrine is very, very cheap. Even in the developing world, it costs less than a dollar per milliliter,"
"The EpiPen isn’t new; it has been in use since 1977. Research and development costs were recouped long ago. Nine years ago, it was bought by the pharmaceutical company Mylan, which then began to sell the device. When Mylan bought it, EpiPens cost about $57 each."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/upshot/the-epipen-a-case-study-in-health-care-system-dysfunction.html

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"peļņa pret vērtību pozīciju". es tieši iebilstu, ka tās ir ortogonālas lietas. peļņa nozīmē to, ka tu esi atradis kādu, kas labprāt atteiksies no naudas (!), lai iegūtu tavu preci vai pakalpojumu. nav viegli cilvēkus pierunāt atteikties no savas nopelnītās naudas. peļņa ir pozitīvs indikātors tam, ka piedāvājums ir bijis kādam tiešām nepieciešams. ijabs video runā par https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_business -- man vienkārši šķiet, ka šis jēdziens ir bez satura.

tas par ko tu runā ir predatory pricing farmācijā--mēs zinam, ka tu neizspruksi, jo zāles vajag, bet tās piedāvājam tikai mēs. atbilde būtu noregulēt tirgu, lai tirgū ienāk 'generics' brendi, kas tās piedāvā lētāk.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Does desire to part money for a product necessarily mean it is useful to society?
Sometimes, sometimes not (I am know thinking of the hugely profitable banking sector - though I suppose it is a corrupted market as they enjoy a monopoly over money creation).

As for businesses that bring labumus sabiedrībai, well I know some that are basically fronts for those who are more than ready to propagate a certain old uncle's ideas.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

not to society in large, perhaps. nonetheless, the individual has seen some value in parting with her money. at least initially--as one may come to regret that decision, of course. we have 'impulse purchases', little self-control and not much in ability to deffer gratification. i don't see, however, how make business 'social' would help in this regard. it would seem that giving someone else your money is as good as indication as any...

(Reply to this) (Parent)