UmmaGumma

Kirjoittaja Aihe: George Soros (yhdistetty)  (Luettu 38832 kertaa)

Miniluv

  • Administrator
  • Jäsen^^^
  • *****
  • Viestejä: 30 491
  • Liked: 11426
  • Mode EVP. 1/949jkl #propelipää
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #30 : 22.05.2016, 18:22:26 »
Soros tulee aiheuttamaan kaaoksen Euroopaan. Hänellä on mahdollisuus vaikuttaa matu-invaasioon, EU maiden talouteen, sekä NATO Venäjä konfliktiin. Mikä tahansa näistä ja varsinkin kaikki yhdessä tekevät tehtävän. Se mitä sen jälkeen tulee tapahtumaan on mysteeri, elämällä kun on aina ässä hihassa.

Jos osaa jo ennakolta sanoa, missä syntyy kaaos ja milloin, niin sitä voi hyödyntää helposti keinotteluun. Kaikki mullistukset vaikuttavat bisneksiin, omaisuusarvoihin, raaka-ainehintoihin jne. Tietämällä, mitä tulee tapahtumaan, voi sijoittaa varallisuutensa siten, että se tulee moninkertaisena takaisin. Tästä Soros on hyvin perillä. Naamioimalla toiminta humanitaariseksi avuksi voidaan piilottaa todelliset tarkoitusperät.

Sinänsä harvinaista, mutta joudun olemaan eri mieltä. Useat tunnetut sijoittajat ovat jo siirtyneet laskusuhdanteen tai suoranaisen romahduksen odottajiin. Myös Soros.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soros-fund-management-doubles-bet-063059318.html

Tämän peliliikkeen siis pystyisi tekemään pelkästään taloustuntemuksella ja tarkalla vainulla. Miljoonat mamut ovat pitemmän aikavälin projekti. Soros ei hae mamuilla pikavoittoa.
"Luulisi että tähän ikään mennessä olisi edes jotain tajunnut elämästä ja yhteiskunnasta." Rosa Meriläinen, HS 30.9.2014

Viestistäsi tulee minulle ilmoitus, jos kirjoitat tekstiin @Miniluv. Tai laita yksityisviesti.

akez

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 6 921
  • Liked: 11050
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #31 : 22.05.2016, 18:43:11 »
^ Puhuin lähinnä yleisesti, miettimättä sitä, miten tällä matukriisillä voitaisiin tehdä pikavoittoja. Siitä samaa mieltä, että kyse on mitä ilmeisimmin pitemmän aikavälin projektista. Voi liittyä noihin jutussa mainittuihin Soroksen pakkomielteisiin. Epäilen kuitenkin, että Soroksen takana on vieläkin merkittävämpiä tahoja toteuttamassa haluamaansa politiikkaa. Kyse tuskin on kiinalaisista tai Putinista, jolloin vaihtoehtoja ei jää enää kovin paljon.

EDIT lisäys kommenttiin

Kaupunkisuunnittelija

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 3 601
  • Liked: 3676
  • Destruktiivinen propagandisti™
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #32 : 22.05.2016, 19:05:07 »
Sinänsä harvinaista, mutta joudun olemaan eri mieltä. Useat tunnetut sijoittajat ovat jo siirtyneet laskusuhdanteen tai suoranaisen romahduksen odottajiin. Myös Soros.

Talousromahdus ei tarkoita sitä etteikö jotkut hyötyisi romahduksesta, varsinkin Venäjän romahduksesta. Sota olisi USA:n taloudelle parasta, mitä tässä tilanteessa voisi kuvitella.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-21/wwiii-hybrid-geo-financial-war-between-nato-and-russia-dangerously-escalating

Destruktiivinen tarkoittaa tuhoavaa. Sinun viestintäsi on tuhoavaa.
- Matias Turkkila

starsailor

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 000
  • Liked: 1139
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #33 : 22.05.2016, 20:03:47 »
Soros on huippuälykäs ja pystyy liikuttelemaan valtion budjetin kokoista rahamassia kuten itse (demokraattisesti) päättää. Hän myös tajuaa, että demokratiassa toimii enemmistön valta ja täten päätäntävalta on keskivertokansalaisilla, joiden päätökset ovat ennalta arvattavia ja helppoja käyttää hyväksi. Jos valtion toiminta oli älykkään itsevaltiaan hallussa, niin Soroksen kaltaiset keinottelijat voisi helposti laittaa polvilleen. Demokratia ei uhkaa Soroksen rikastumista, mutta pääpointti taitaa olla siinä, että valtava Matujoukko aiheuttaa tilan, jossa Soros pystyy parhaiten keinottelemaan ja hankkimaan entistä suuremman omaisuuden.
"Suomalaisen ihmisen geeneissä on orja-, setä Tuomo- ja pelkurigeeni. Ja se on tyhmä kuin aasi. Aasin järki ja cuckold-sielu." Jorma M.

JKN93

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 979
  • Liked: 616
  • Yhteiskunta Tutkija
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #34 : 22.05.2016, 20:30:20 »
Soros on tässä vain yksi tekijä näistä monista taustavaikuttajista.Ja Soroshan ei ole yksin,vaan hänen kanssaan yhteistyössä on koko USA;n,EU;n ja monien EU-maiden johtavat eliitit.
Taustalla on isompi pitkäaikainen suunnitelma ja kuvio.

Asia selviää lukemalla mm.
USA;n EU Edustuston lausuntoja: http://useu.usmission.gov/gardner_speeches.html
USA;n ja EU;n yhteistyöjärjestön/ajatushautomon GMF;n tekstejä: http://www.gmfus.org/
Maahanmuutto Instituutti MPI;n tekstejä: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/

Näiltä sivustoilta kun katsoo vielä rahoittajat ja tukijat,niin sieltä löytyy nämä samat USA;n,EU;n ja monien EU-maiden hallinnot ja valtaeliitit jne...

törö

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 18 610
  • Liked: 6607
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #35 : 22.05.2016, 20:51:06 »
^ Puhuin lähinnä yleisesti, miettimättä sitä, miten tällä matukriisillä voitaisiin tehdä pikavoittoja. Siitä samaa mieltä, että kyse on mitä ilmeisimmin pitemmän aikavälin projektista. Voi liittyä noihin jutussa mainittuihin Soroksen pakkomielteisiin. Epäilen kuitenkin, että Soroksen takana on vieläkin merkittävämpiä tahoja toteuttamassa haluamaansa politiikkaa. Kyse tuskin on kiinalaisista tai Putinista, jolloin vaihtoehtoja ei jää enää kovin paljon.

EDIT lisäys kommenttiin

Ukrainassa valta siirtyi umpirikollisille oligarkeille niin että eiköhän tavoite ole sama muuallakin.

Itä-Euroopassa näitä vallankumouksia yritetään varmaan saada aikaiseksi enemmänkin, koska poliitikoilla menevät valtion rahat ja omat rahat sekaisin joka puolella ja kansa on helppo yllyttää nousemaan niitä vastaan, että valtaan saataisiin oikeita mafiosoja.

Janukovitsh käänsi valtion kassan, mutta Poroshenko on myynyt naisia seksiorjiksi ja tätä pitäisi osata pitää demokratiakehityksenä.
Suomalaisuuden taudinkuva yksissä kansissa.
https://pohjolangalapagos.wordpress.com/

Totti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 2 518
  • Liked: 7017
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #36 : 22.05.2016, 20:59:22 »
Soros tulee aiheuttamaan kaaoksen Euroopaan. Hänellä on mahdollisuus vaikuttaa matu-invaasioon, EU maiden talouteen, sekä NATO Venäjä konfliktiin. Mikä tahansa näistä ja varsinkin kaikki yhdessä tekevät tehtävän. Se mitä sen jälkeen tulee tapahtumaan on mysteeri, elämällä kun on aina ässä hihassa.

Jos osaa jo ennakolta sanoa, missä syntyy kaaos ja milloin, niin sitä voi hyödyntää helposti keinotteluun. Kaikki mullistukset vaikuttavat bisneksiin, omaisuusarvoihin, raaka-ainehintoihin jne. Tietämällä, mitä tulee tapahtumaan, voi sijoittaa varallisuutensa siten, että se tulee moninkertaisena takaisin. Tästä Soros on hyvin perillä. Naamioimalla toiminta humanitaariseksi avuksi voidaan piilottaa todelliset tarkoitusperät.

Sinänsä harvinaista, mutta joudun olemaan eri mieltä. Useat tunnetut sijoittajat ovat jo siirtyneet laskusuhdanteen tai suoranaisen romahduksen odottajiin. Myös Soros.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soros-fund-management-doubles-bet-063059318.html

Tämän peliliikkeen siis pystyisi tekemään pelkästään taloustuntemuksella ja tarkalla vainulla. Miljoonat mamut ovat pitemmän aikavälin projekti. Soros ei hae mamuilla pikavoittoa.

Viimeistään silloin kun Soroksen rahastot alkavat sijoittamaan sotateollisuuden osakkeisiin, tiedämme mikä sijoitusstrategia oli.

En juurikaan lämpene juutalaissalaliitoille, mutta Soros vahvistaa juuri  stereotypian ökyrikkaista ja härskeistä juutalaisista, jotka lietsovat eripuraa tehdäkseen rahaa.

Tarinan mukaan hän aloitti liiketoiminnat myymällä juutalaiset kaverinsa natseille: http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/01/28/george-soros-says-he-feels-no-remorse-for-collaborating-with-nazis-during-wwii-to-send-his-fellow-jews-to-the-death-camps-steal-their-property/

Soroksen moraali ei ainakaan ole kohentunut noilta ajoilta.
« Viimeksi muokattu: 22.05.2016, 21:02:56 kirjoittanut Totti »
Jos haluat vihastuttaa konservatiivin, valehtele hänelle.
Jos haluat vihastuttaa vasemmistoliberaalin, kerro totuus.

Sarma

  • Jäsen^^
  • **
  • Viestejä: 204
  • Liked: 46
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #37 : 22.05.2016, 21:02:31 »
Soroksen epäilyttävä toiminta on näköjään huomioitu muuallakin:
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160516/1039692024/soros-ngos-europe-refugees.html

Lisäksi Reutersin mukaan Soroksen Open Society järjestö on yritetty kieltää,kun on alkanut tulemaan ongelmia;
http://www.reuters.com/article/russia-soros-idUSL1N13P22Y20151130

keski-ikäinen

  • Jäsen^^
  • **
  • Viestejä: 271
  • Liked: 318
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #38 : 22.05.2016, 21:46:44 »
Itse uskon että Soros hamuaa muuta kuin rahaa, joka on jo aikaa sitten menettänyt merkityksen hänen kaltaisilleen. Kyse on vallasta, yhä suuremmasta vallan tavoittelusta. Tuon tason miljardöörit uskovat olevansa jumalia. Heille maailma on shakkilauta jolla tehdä siirtoja. Soros ja kumppanit tavoittelevat uutta maailman hallitusta, joissa he toimisivat diktaattoreina, määräten ja vaikuttaen maailman väkilukuun, resurssien käytöön jne. Kolmas maailmansota olisi hyvä alku näiden psykopaattien mielestä.   

akez

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 6 921
  • Liked: 11050
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #39 : 23.05.2016, 07:37:53 »
Soros on tässä vain yksi tekijä näistä monista taustavaikuttajista.Ja Soroshan ei ole yksin,vaan hänen kanssaan yhteistyössä on koko USA;n,EU;n ja monien EU-maiden johtavat eliitit.
Taustalla on isompi pitkäaikainen suunnitelma ja kuvio.

Asia selviää lukemalla mm.
USA;n EU Edustuston lausuntoja: http://useu.usmission.gov/gardner_speeches.html
USA;n ja EU;n yhteistyöjärjestön/ajatushautomon GMF;n tekstejä: http://www.gmfus.org/
Maahanmuutto Instituutti MPI;n tekstejä: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/

Näiltä sivustoilta kun katsoo vielä rahoittajat ja tukijat,niin sieltä löytyy nämä samat USA;n,EU;n ja monien EU-maiden hallinnot ja valtaeliitit jne...

Tuo GMF vaikuttaa varsin mielenkiintoiselta tapaukselta. Jo ensimmäisellä sivulla silmille pomppasi alla oleva kuva. Piti ihan silmiä hieraista, että onko tämä joku feikki- tai pilasivu? Mutta aitoa kamaa näytti olevan.

EDIT vaihdettu kuva versioon, jossa näkyy myös kuvan päällä oleva teksti

akez

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 6 921
  • Liked: 11050
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #40 : 23.05.2016, 07:40:48 »
tupla, voi poistaa

akez

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 6 921
  • Liked: 11050
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #41 : 23.05.2016, 07:41:32 »
myös tupla

akez

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 6 921
  • Liked: 11050
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #42 : 23.05.2016, 07:43:47 »
myös tupla

Sähläsin kiireessä urakalla. Tämänkin voi poistaa.

Porcius

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 136
  • Liked: 1143
  • Asiantuntija ilman papereita
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #43 : 26.05.2016, 14:22:04 »
Kaiken takana on juutalainen.  :P
"On helvetin tyhmää mennä helvettiin, kun taivaaseenkin pääsisi"

-Jouko Piho

Kulttuurirealisti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 4 617
  • Liked: 3712
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #44 : 26.05.2016, 15:49:36 »
Jos osaa jo ennakolta sanoa, missä syntyy kaaos ja milloin, niin sitä voi hyödyntää helposti keinotteluun. Kaikki mullistukset vaikuttavat bisneksiin, omaisuusarvoihin, raaka-ainehintoihin jne. Tietämällä, mitä tulee tapahtumaan, voi sijoittaa varallisuutensa siten, että se tulee moninkertaisena takaisin.
...
Tarinan mukaan hän aloitti liiketoiminnat myymällä juutalaiset kaverinsa natseille: http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/01/28/george-soros-says-he-feels-no-remorse-for-collaborating-with-nazis-during-wwii-to-send-his-fellow-jews-to-the-death-camps-steal-their-property/

Soroksen moraali ei ainakaan ole kohentunut noilta ajoilta.

Ei niin. Ylläolevasta artikkelista nostona:
Lainaus
Last year [2010], when he made $3.3 billion off the banking collapse, he called the world’s financial crisis “the culmination of my life’s work.”

Soros on aika usein käyttänyt hyväkseen ymmärrystä missä rytisee seuraavaksi.  Kätevimpiä tiedonlähteitä varmasti on, jos rytinän aiheuttajat kertovat sen suoraan.

Näitä kavereita ei kiinnosta pätkääkään, miten talous- tai muiden kaaosten jalkoihin jääneille käy.
"Ajatus siitä, että loikkaisin perustamastani puolueesta on mieletön." - T. Soini, 3.6.2017

"Kaikki Suomeen tulleethan olis voitu palauttaa" - Juha Sipilä, 2016

hattiwatti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 883
  • Liked: 6026
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #45 : 21.07.2016, 12:45:59 »
Soroksen uusin ultimatum:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-20/george-soros-doubles-down-accept-300k-refugees-costing-30bn-or-risk-eu-collapse

Lainaus
George Soros Doubles Down: Accept 300k Refugees Costing $30Bn, Or Risk EU Collapse

Seemingly doubling down on his comments in April (following what he called Europe's "flawed asylum policy"), George Soros has expanded his demands from four to seven fundamental pillars on how to prevent the collapse of the European Union. In an article penned for Foreign Policy titled “This Is Europe’s Last Chance to Fix Its Refugee Policy," Soros details his plan (over-riding the current "piecemeal approach") for rescuing Europe before it is too late. Simply put, the billionaire says the EU must take in hundreds of thousands of refugees a year, spend at least 30 billion euros (a minor sum, since he believes it can all be financed by debt and taxes) or Europe faces an "existential threat."

Soros begins ominously: The EU’s piecemeal solutions are coming apart. Only a surge of financial and political creativity can avoid a catastrophe.

    The refugee crisis was already leading to the slow disintegration of the European Union. Then, on June 23, it contributed to an even greater calamity — Brexit. Both of these crises have reinforced xenophobic, nationalist movements across the continent. They will try to win a series of key votes in the coming year — including national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany in 2017, a referendum in Hungary on EU refugee policy on Oct. 2, a rerun of the Austrian presidential election on the same day, and a constitutional referendum in Italy in October or November of this year.

     

    Rather than uniting to resist this threat, EU member states have become increasingly unwilling to cooperate with one another. They pursue self-serving, discordant migration policies, often to the detriment of their neighbors. In these circumstances, a comprehensive and coherent European asylum policy is not possible in the short term, despite the efforts of the EU’s governing body, the European Commission. The trust needed for cooperation is lacking. It will have to be rebuilt through a long and laborious process.

     

    This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive policy ought to remain the highest priority for European leaders; the union cannot survive without it. The refugee crisis is not a one-off event; it augurs a period of higher migration pressures for the foreseeable future, due to a variety of causes including demographic and economic imbalances between Europe and Africa, unending conflicts in the broader region, and climate change. Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards.

     

    What would a comprehensive approach look like? It would establish a guaranteed target of at least 300,000 refugees each year who would be securely resettled directly to Europe from the Middle East — a total that hopefully would be matched by countries elsewhere in the world. That target should be large enough to persuade genuine asylum-seekers not to risk their lives by crossing the Mediterranean Sea, especially if reaching Europe by irregular means would disqualify them from being considered genuine asylum-seekers.

    This could serve as the basis for Europe to provide sufficient funds for major refugee-hosting countries outside Europe and establish processing centers in those countries; create a potent EU border and coast guard; set common standards for processing and integrating asylum-seekers (and for returning those who do not qualify); and renegotiate the Dublin III Regulation in order to more fairly share the asylum burden across the EU.

And, as ValueWalk's Jacob Wolinksy notes, specifically Soros thinks the seven points below are key...

    First, the EU and the rest of the world must take in a substantial number of refugees directly from front-line countries in a secure and orderly manner, which would be far more acceptable to the public than the current disorder...

    Second, the EU must regain control of its borders. There is little that alienates and scares publics more than scenes of chaos...

    Third, the EU needs to develop financial tools that can provide sufficient funds for the long-term challenges it faces and not limp from episode to episode...

    Fourth, the crisis must be used to build common European mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees...

    Fifth, once refugees have been recognized, there needs to be a mechanism for relocating them within Europe in an agreed way...

    Sixth, the European Union, together with the international community, must support foreign refugee-hosting countries far more generously than it currently does...

    The seventh and final pillar is that, given its aging population, Europe must eventually create an environment in which economic migration is welcome.


Soros concludes as follows:

    The benefits brought by migration far outweigh the costs of integrating immigrants. Skilled economic immigrants improve productivity, generate growth, and raise the absorptive capacity of the recipient country. Different populations bring different skills, but the contributions come as much from the innovations they introduce as from their specific skills — in both their countries of origin and their countries of destination. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, starting with the Huguenots’ contribution to the first industrial revolution by bringing both weaving and banking to England. All the evidence supports the conclusion that migrants have a high potential to contribute to innovation and development if they are given a chance to do so.

     

    Pursuing these seven principles is essential in order to calm public fears, reduce chaotic flows of asylum-seekers, ensure that newcomers are fully integrated, establish mutually beneficial relations with countries in the Middle East and Africa, and meet Europe’s international humanitarian obligations.

     

    The refugee crisis is not the only crisis Europe has to face, but it is the most pressing. And if significant progress could be made on the refugee issue, it would make the other issues — from the continuing Greek debt crisis to the fallout from Brexit to the challenge posed by Russia — easier to tackle. All the pieces need to fit together, and the chances of success remain slim. But as long as there is a strategy that might succeed, all the people who want the European Union to survive should rally behind it.

Interestingly, Soros goes back hundreds of years to give us the examples Huguenots and not fifty years to when France starting letting in migrants from Algeria and Morocco – so far the much recent plan has been a failure most would agree even before the recent terror attack in Nice. While hope continues to spring eternal (for many establishmentarians) that the EU stays together, we can't help but suspect that spending 30 billion euros a year (funded by taxing or indebting EU citizens more) and letting in 'even' 300,000 refugees a year when the social fabric of the looming super-state is near collapse, terrorist attacks are increasing, and unemployment in many European countries is in double digits – will likely be a non-starter.

hattiwatti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 883
  • Liked: 6026
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #46 : 21.07.2016, 12:52:18 »
Edellisen kommentaarista aika osuva:
Lainaus
I ain’t no Erdogan’s fan, but…

He wanted $3 Billion for hosting 3 million refugees costing the EU about $1,000 a pop.

Soros’ price tag is $30 Billion for 300,000 refugees, at $100,000 per rapefugee.

Shouldn’t have Merkel taken Erdogan’s offer in the first place?   ;-)

nollatoleranssi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 12 641
  • Liked: 6534
  • Puhekin on teko
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #47 : 21.07.2016, 14:36:59 »
Nostetaan vielä tänne tämäkin tieto:

Kukaan ei ole väittänyt Sorosin olevan ainoa syypää. Hän on henkilöitymä matuvyöryllä länsimaiden täyttämisestä rahoittaja-/omistajapuolella samalla tavalla kuin vaikka Eva Bio-D on henkilöitymä suomenruotsalaisen eliitin destruktiomokuttamisesta politiikassa tai Vartianen destruktiomokuttamisesta taloustiedepuolella.

Europarlamentaarikko Liisa Jaakonsaari (sdp) tänään Hesarissa:

Lainaus
Paljasta kulissien takainen vallankäyttäjä EU:ssa.

”Amerikkalainen suursijoittaja George Soros. Hänellä on paljon erilaisia säätiöitä, jotka vaikuttavat päätöksentekoon.

Soros viitoittaa monille asioille suuntaa, esimerkiksi pankkiunionin tai ihmisoikeuksien suhteen. Usein käy niin, että kun olen tekemisissä vaikka kazakstanilaisten kanssa, he kertovat taustavaikuttajansa olevan joku Sorosin lonkero.
Helsingin Sanomat: Paljasta salattu vallankäyttäjä ja mitä kaipaat Suomesta – Neljä kysymystä mepille 19.12.2015

Sorosista on ollut juttua paljonkin tällä foorumilla, mutta on koko ajan tullut mieleen kuin kyseessä olisi jokin vakooja- ja salaliittotarinoiden taustalla seikkaileva mysteerinen monimiljonääri, jonka toimia ei kukaan ole pystynyt kunnolla vahvistamaan.

Mielestäni viimeistään tuo tieto, että suomalaispoliitikoillakin on näin hyvä käsitys siitä kuka pitää lankoja käsissään ex-Neuvostoliiton maissa kertoo paljon laajemmasta Yhdysvaltojen osallisuudesta tapahtumiin kuin moni haluaisi ja uskaltaisi kuvitellakkaan.
Suomalaisen median uusi slogan: "Yhden totuuden taktiikalla eteenpäin!"

11.9.2015: Suomalainen terrorismiasiantuntija: Tarina pakolaisten joukkoon soluttautuneista terroristeista satua
13.11.2015- Terroristijahteja joka puolella Eurooppaa

Roope

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 27 199
  • Liked: 35153
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #48 : 21.07.2016, 15:11:59 »
Soroksen uusin ultimatum:

Lainaus
Soros: näin pakolaiskriisiä ratkotaan

Miljardöörisijoittaja George Soros hahmottelee kannanotossaan useita erilaisia keinoja, miten Euroopan pakolaiskriisi saataisiin ratkottua.

Hänen mukaansa Euroopan unionin pitäisi sitoutua ottamaan vuosittain ainakin 300 000 pakolaista pahimmista kriisimaista.

Sorosin mukaan EU:n pitäisi saada rajanvalvontansa kuriin, jottei Euroopan tilanne näyttäytyisi niin sekavana kansainvälisessä mediassa.

EU:n tulisi Sorosin mukaan tarjota myös riittävät varat Kreikalle ja Italialle, jotta ne pystyvät pitämään huolta kaikista turvapaikanhakijoista.

Lisäksi hän uskoo, että EU:n pitäisi löyhentää budjettikuriaan ja budjettia koskeavia säännöksiä. Hänen näkemyksensä mukaan pakolaistilanne verottaa EU:n kassaa vähintään 30 miljardin euron edestä vuosittain.
Arvopaperi 20.7.2016

Koko "hei me tienataan pumppaamalla rahaa Afrikkaan"-sepustus:

Lainaus
George Soros: This Is Europe’s Last Chance to Fix Its Refugee Policy

The EU’s piecemeal solutions are coming apart. Only a surge of financial and political creativity can avoid a catastrophe.

The refugee crisis was already leading to the slow disintegration of the European Union. Then, on June 23, it contributed to an even greater calamity — Brexit. Both of these crises have reinforced xenophobic, nationalist movements across the continent. They will try to win a series of key votes in the coming year — including national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany in 2017, a referendum in Hungary on EU refugee policy on Oct. 2, a rerun of the Austrian presidential election on the same day, and a constitutional referendum in Italy in October or November of this year.

Rather than uniting to resist this threat, EU member states have become increasingly unwilling to cooperate with one another. They pursue self-serving, discordant migration policies, often to the detriment of their neighbors. In these circumstances, a comprehensive and coherent European asylum policy is not possible in the short term, despite the efforts of the EU’s governing body, the European Commission. The trust needed for cooperation is lacking. It will have to be rebuilt through a long and laborious process.

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive policy ought to remain the highest priority for European leaders; the union cannot survive without it. The refugee crisis is not a one-off event; it augurs a period of higher migration pressures for the foreseeable future, due to a variety of causes including demographic and economic imbalances between Europe and Africa, unending conflicts in the broader region, and climate change. Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards.

What would a comprehensive approach look like? It would establish a guaranteed target of at least 300,000 refugees each year who would be securely resettled directly to Europe from the Middle East — a total that hopefully would be matched by countries elsewhere in the world. That target should be large enough to persuade genuine asylum-seekers not to risk their lives by crossing the Mediterranean Sea, especially if reaching Europe by irregular means would disqualify them from being considered genuine asylum-seekers.

This could serve as the basis for Europe to provide sufficient funds for major refugee-hosting countries outside Europe and establish processing centers in those countries; create a potent EU border and coast guard; set common standards for processing and integrating asylum-seekers (and for returning those who do not qualify); and renegotiate the Dublin III Regulation in order to more fairly share the asylum burden across the EU.

The current piecemeal response to the crisis, culminating in the agreement between the EU and Turkey to stem refugee flows from the Eastern Mediterranean, suffers from four fundamental flaws. First, it is not truly European; the agreement with Turkey was negotiated and imposed on Europe by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Second, the overall response is severely underfunded. Third, it has transformed Greece into a de facto holding pen with inadequate facilities. Finally, it is not voluntary: It is trying to impose quotas that many member states strenuously oppose and requires refugees to take up residence in countries where they are not welcome and where they do not want to go while returning to Turkey others who reached Europe by irregular means.

The agreement with Turkey was problematic even before the July 15 coup attempt that has plunged Europe’s future into even greater uncertainty. On one level, the agreement seems to be a success, since the Balkan route is largely blocked and refugee flows to Greece have fallen to a trickle. But refugee flows have surged on the more dangerous Mediterranean routes. At the same time, the very premise of the deal — that asylum-seekers can legally be returned to Turkey — is fundamentally flawed. Greek courts and asylum committees have consistently ruled that Turkey is not a “safe third country” for most Syrian asylum-seekers, a perspective likely to be reinforced after the coup attempt. The recent reorganization of the asylum appeals committees in Greece to make them more government-friendly is liable to be challenged in the courts, as will the European Commission’s July 13 proposal to override the decisions of national courts.

Meanwhile, the EU-Turkey deal, built on the premise that refugee rights can be traded for financial and political favors, is now being used as a template more broadly. Last month, the European Commission called for making development funds contingent on the implementation of migration controls by African partners. This violates the values and principles that ought to guide the European Union, constitutes a break with decades of practice in development funding, and degrades the treatment of both migrants and refugees. The grand bargain with countries in Africa and elsewhere cannot simply be: If you stop migrants from coming to Europe, you can do anything else you want. This approach damages everyone, morally, politically, and economically. A true grand bargain would focus on development in Africa — real development that over a generation would actually address the root causes of migration that so many politicians frequently invoke in their rhetoric and just as frequently disregard in practice.

An effective alternative to the EU’s current approach would be built on seven pillars.

First, the EU and the rest of the world must take in a substantial number of refugees directly from front-line countries in a secure and orderly manner, which would be far more acceptable to the public than the current disorder. If the EU made a commitment to admit even just 300,000 refugees each year, and if that commitment were matched by countries elsewhere in the world, most genuine asylum-seekers would calculate that their odds of reaching their destination are good enough for them not to seek to reach Europe illegally, since that would disqualify them from being legally admitted. If, on top of this, conditions in front-line countries improved thanks to greater aid, there would be no refugee crisis. But the problem of economic migrants would remain.

This brings us to the second point: The EU must regain control of its borders. There is little that alienates and scares publics more than scenes of chaos. Fifteen months after the acute phase of the crisis began, confusion continues to reign in Greece and its Mediterranean waters. More than 50,000 refugees live in squalor in a series of poorly organized, impromptu camps throughout the country. Europeans see this on their screens and wonder why the mighty European Union is incapable of supplying even basic provisions to children and women fleeing war. Meanwhile, the most advanced navies of the world appear incapable of saving those crossing the Mediterranean; the number of drownings has increased dramatically this year. The cynical explanation for all this — that the EU is intentionally allowing these conditions to persist so that they serve as a deterrent — is equally troubling.

The immediate remedy is simple: provide Greece and Italy with sufficient funds to care for asylum-seekers, order navies to make search-and-rescue missions (and not “protection” of borders) their priority, and implement the promise to relocate 60,000 asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU member states.

Third, the EU needs to develop financial tools that can provide sufficient funds for the long-term challenges it faces and not limp from episode to episode. Over the years, the EU has had to finance an ever-growing number of undertakings with a shrinking pool of resources. In 2014, member states and the European Parliament agreed to reduce and cap the overall EU budget at a modest 1.23 percent of the sum of its members’ GDPs until 2020. That was a tragic mistake. The EU cannot survive with a budget of this size.

At least 30 billion euros a year will be needed for the EU to carry out a comprehensive asylum plan. These funds are needed both inside the union — to build effective border and asylum agencies and ensure dignified reception conditions, fair asylum procedures, and opportunities for integration — as well as outside its borders — to support refugee-hosting countries and spur job creation throughout Africa and the Middle East. Robust border and asylum agencies alone could cost on the order of 15 billion euros.

Although 30 billion euros might seem like an enormous amount, it pales in comparison to the political, human, and economic costs of a protracted crisis. There is a real threat, for instance, that Europe’s Schengen system of open internal borders will collapse. The Bertelsmann Foundation has estimated that abandoning Schengen would cost the EU between 47 billion and 140 billion euros in GDP lost each year.

The current approach is based on reallocating minimal amounts from the EU budget and then asking member states to contribute to various dedicated vehicles, such as the Facility for Refugees in Turkey and the EU Regional Trust Fund for Syria, which were used, respectively, to provide financial compensation for Turkey and additional EU funding to international organizations and neighboring countries as a response to the Syrian crisis. These, however, can only be a temporary solution, as they are neither sustainable nor large enough to finance efforts that must grow in size and scope. Although these trust funds can be powerful instruments in the short term to redeploy resources and allow member states to commit more funds to a particular endeavor, they also illustrate the fundamental deficiency of the current system — namely that it remains dependent on the good will of the member states at each step.

In order to raise the necessary funds in the short term, the EU will need to engage in what I call “surge funding.” This entails raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU’s relatively small budget, rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year. Today, the EU stands out for having a remarkably low amount of debt given the size of its budget; it should therefore leverage this budget like all sovereign governments in the world do.

Spending a large amount at the outset in that way will allow the EU to respond more effectively to some of the most dangerous consequences of the refugee crisis and prevent some of its worst consequences. These include anti-immigrant sentiment in its member states that has fueled support for authoritarian political parties and despondency among those seeking refuge in Europe, who now find themselves marginalized in Middle East host countries or stuck in transit in Greece. Making large initial investments in border protection, search-and-rescue operations, asylum processing, and dignified refugee sheltering will help tip the economic, political, and social dynamics away from xenophobia and disaffection and toward constructive outcomes that benefit refugees and host countries alike. In the long run, this will reduce the total amount of money Europe will have to spend to contain and recover from the refugee crisis.

To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later. In the meantime, needs can be partially met by mobilizing the unused credit of already existing EU financial instruments: balance-of-payments assistance, Macro-Financial Assistance, and the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM). These instruments together have more than 50 billion euros of unused credit available. The facilities would have to be repurposed and their mandate expanded, which would meet considerable resistance. But those are not good enough reasons to avoid tapping the unused financial capacity of the European Union.

At the height of the euro crisis, member states were able to summon the political will to rapidly create a new set of instruments that vastly augmented the financial power of the EU. The EFSM, which then became the European Stability Mechanism, raised the borrowing capacity of the EU to some 500 billion euros in just a year, proving that when there is a will, there is a way. But all these instruments face three limitations: They are mostly intergovernmental and rely on member-state guarantees rather than the EU budget, which remains too small to undertake such large borrowing; they require unanimous authorization by the member states; and they are essentially designed to lend money to other member states rather than engage true spending in the name of the EU.

The only way ahead is to form “coalitions of the willing” that do not require unanimous consent. These initiatives could inspire deeper reforms of the EU budget. I was therefore greatly encouraged last year when German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble suggested a pan-European gasoline tax. I was soon disillusioned, however, when he explicitly warned against utilizing the largely unused borrowing power of the European Union.

The very existence of the European Union is at stake. It is the height of irresponsibility and a dereliction of duty to allow the EU to disintegrate without utilizing all its financial resources. Throughout history, governments have issued bonds in response to national emergencies. When should the EU use its largely untapped borrowing capacity if not at a moment when it is in mortal danger? Doing so would have the additional advantage of providing a much needed economic stimulus. With interest rates at historic lows, now is a particularly favorable moment to take on such debt.

Fourth, the crisis must be used to build common European mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees. Some modest progress is underway: Legislation establishing a European Border and Coast Guard was adopted this month by the European Parliament. But the Dublin III Regulation — the basis of determining which country bears responsibility for processing and hosting asylum-seekers — prevents solidarity among EU member states by putting most of the burden on the country of first entrance; it needs to be renegotiated.

A European solution is currently emerging on the ground in Greece, where the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) de facto examines asylum applications in order to assist the overwhelmed Greek authorities. A single European asylum procedure would remove the incentives for asylum shopping and rebuild trust among member states.

Fifth, once refugees have been recognized, there needs to be a mechanism for relocating them within Europe in an agreed way. It will be crucial for the EU to fundamentally rethink the implementation of its stillborn resettlement and relocation programs; a tentative step in this direction was taken last week in new proposals put forth by the European Commission. The union cannot coerce either member states or refugees to participate in these programs. They must be voluntary; a matching scheme could elicit preferences from both refugees and receiving communities so that people end up where they want to be and where they are welcome. EASO has begun to develop such a matching scheme.

These programs should be deeply anchored in communities. Mayors across Europe have shown a remarkable willingness to receive refugees but have been thwarted by national governments. Public-private sponsorship programs — wherein small groups of individuals, community organizations, and companies support newcomers, financially and otherwise, as they negotiate schools, job markets, and communities — could benefit from the untapped goodwill of citizens throughout Europe.

Canada provides a good role model (although its geographic context differs from Europe’s). In just four months, it admitted 25,000 Syrian refugees and is integrating them through public-private partnerships and local nonprofits. The government has promised to accept another 10,000 Syrians by year’s end and 44,000 refugees in total in 2016. (At the same time, it is admitting 300,000 migrants in total every year; this would be the equivalent of the EU accepting 4.5 million migrants annually.)

The process by which Canada resettles refugees has been refined through repeated use over a long period of time and passes even the hyperstringent security standards of its southern neighbor. The vetting of Syrian asylum-seekers was meticulously carried out by some 500 consular and military officials mobilized immediately after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office last November and made the project a top priority. Both the public and media responded positively, despite the shock of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which occurred at the height of Canada’s Syrian refugee program. Determined leadership from the top, close coordination with receiving local communities, robust screening and resettlement procedures, and honesty in confronting inevitable problems — these were the main ingredients of success. Compare that to conditions prevailing in Europe, and you get an indication of the distance that the EU has to travel.

Sixth, the European Union, together with the international community, must support foreign refugee-hosting countries far more generously than it currently does. The required support is in part financial, so that countries such as Jordan can provide adequate schooling, housing, training, and health care to refugees, and partly in the form of trade preferences, so that these countries can provide employment both to refugees and to their own populations. It simply does not make sense for Europe to commit upwards of 200 billion euros between 2015 and 2020 to deal with the crisis on its own shores — this is the amount member states are on track to spend on refugee reception and integration — when a small fraction of that amount spent abroad would have kept the influx of migrants to manageable proportions.

Equally, the EU must be more generous in its approach to Africa and not merely offer financial aid in exchange for migration controls, as the European Commission proposed last month. This approach simply empowers African leaders to wield migration as a threat against Europe, much as Erdogan has done. Instead, it must focus on real development in Africa. This means free trade, massive investment, and a commitment to rooting out corruption.

Some leaders in Europe have called for a Marshall Plan for Africa. This is an admirable ambition. But when it comes to the details, Europe is far away from such a vision. After World War II, the United States invested 1.4 percent of its GDP to help rebuild Europe — every year for four years. An investment on the scale of the original Marshall Plan would require around 270 billion euros a year for the next four years, a number we are very far from.

The seventh and final pillar is that, given its aging population, Europe must eventually create an environment in which economic migration is welcome. Merkel opened Germany’s doors wide to refugees, but her generous act was not well thought through; it ignored the pull factor. A sudden influx of more than a million asylum-seekers overwhelmed the capacity of the authorities, turning public opinion against migrants. Now the EU urgently needs to limit the overall inflow of newcomers, and it can do so only by discriminating against economic migrants. Hopefully, this is temporary, but while it lasts, it is both inappropriate and damaging.

The benefits brought by migration far outweigh the costs of integrating immigrants. Skilled economic immigrants improve productivity, generate growth, and raise the absorptive capacity of the recipient country. Different populations bring different skills, but the contributions come as much from the innovations they introduce as from their specific skills — in both their countries of origin and their countries of destination. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, starting with the Huguenots’ contribution to the first industrial revolution by bringing both weaving and banking to England. All the evidence supports the conclusion that migrants have a high potential to contribute to innovation and development if they are given a chance to do so.

Pursuing these seven principles is essential in order to calm public fears, reduce chaotic flows of asylum-seekers, ensure that newcomers are fully integrated, establish mutually beneficial relations with countries in the Middle East and Africa, and meet Europe’s international humanitarian obligations.

The refugee crisis is not the only crisis Europe has to face, but it is the most pressing. And if significant progress could be made on the refugee issue, it would make the other issues — from the continuing Greek debt crisis to the fallout from Brexit to the challenge posed by Russia — easier to tackle. All the pieces need to fit together, and the chances of success remain slim. But as long as there is a strategy that might succeed, all the people who want the European Union to survive should rally behind it.

George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC and the Open Society Foundations.

Liian paljon järjettömyyksiä, että jaksaisin nyt purkaa.
Mediaseuranta - Maahanmuuttoaiheiset uutiset, tiedotteet ja tutkimukset

Roope

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 27 199
  • Liked: 35153
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #49 : 21.07.2016, 16:57:35 »
Vaan pakkohan se oli:

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
First, the EU and the rest of the world must take in a substantial number of refugees directly from front-line countries in a secure and orderly manner, which would be far more acceptable to the public than the current disorder. If the EU made a commitment to admit even just 300,000 refugees each year, and if that commitment were matched by countries elsewhere in the world, most genuine asylum-seekers would calculate that their odds of reaching their destination are good enough for them not to seek to reach Europe illegally, since that would disqualify them from being legally admitted. If, on top of this, conditions in front-line countries improved thanks to greater aid, there would be no refugee crisis. But the problem of economic migrants would remain.

Eli Soros vaatii EU:ta ottamaan vähintään 300 000 kiintiöpakolaista vuodessa, jotta "aidot turvapaikanhakijat" arvioisivat mahdollisuutensa päästä Eurooppaan niin hyviksi, että eivät pyrkisi tänne laittomasti, koska se estäisi laillisen pääsyn kiintiön kautta.

Äly hoi. Jo pelkästään Saksaan hakeutui viime vuonna yli miljoona turvapaikanhakijaa. UNHCR:n pakolaisleireillä elää miljoonia ihmisiä. Kiintiöiden kasvattamisella olisi korkeintaan marginaalinen vaikutus laittomasti tulevien määrään. Etenkin jos laiton tulo saadaan estettyä tavalla tai toisella, voidaan kysyä, onko kiintiöpakolaisten asuttaminen Eurooppaan ylipäätään järkevää. Se ei ole.

Soros väittää, että pakolaiskiintiöitä ja humanitaarista apua merkittävästi kasvattamalla pakolaiskriisi katoaisi, mutta elintasosiirtolaisten ongelma jäisi. Itse asiassa kriisin kannalta mikään ei muuttuisi. Aivan sama, kutsutaanko tulijoita pakolaisiksi vai elintasopakolaisiksi, sillä heidän Euroopassa aiheuttamansa ongelmat pysyvät samoina.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
This brings us to the second point: The EU must regain control of its borders. There is little that alienates and scares publics more than scenes of chaos. Fifteen months after the acute phase of the crisis began, confusion continues to reign in Greece and its Mediterranean waters. More than 50,000 refugees live in squalor in a series of poorly organized, impromptu camps throughout the country. Europeans see this on their screens and wonder why the mighty European Union is incapable of supplying even basic provisions to children and women fleeing war. Meanwhile, the most advanced navies of the world appear incapable of saving those crossing the Mediterranean; the number of drownings has increased dramatically this year. The cynical explanation for all this — that the EU is intentionally allowing these conditions to persist so that they serve as a deterrent — is equally troubling.

The immediate remedy is simple: provide Greece and Italy with sufficient funds to care for asylum-seekers, order navies to make search-and-rescue missions (and not “protection” of borders) their priority, and implement the promise to relocate 60,000 asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU member states.

Sorosin mukaan EU:n rajat saadaan hallintaan lähettämällä Kreikkaan ja Italiaan rahaa turvapaikanhakijoista huolehtimiseen, tekemällä meritaksipalvelusta Välimeren laivastojen ykkösprioriteetti ja jakamalla Kreikassa ja Italiassa nyt oleskelevat 60 000 turvapaikanhakijaa EU-maiden kesken. Noita neuvoja noudattamalla Kreikassa ja Italiassa (ja Italian kautta muualla Euroopassa) on hyvin pian uudet 60 000 turvapaikanhakijaa, eivätkä rajat ole yhtään aiempaa paremmin hallinnassa.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
Third, the EU needs to develop financial tools that can provide sufficient funds for the long-term challenges it faces and not limp from episode to episode. Over the years, the EU has had to finance an ever-growing number of undertakings with a shrinking pool of resources. In 2014, member states and the European Parliament agreed to reduce and cap the overall EU budget at a modest 1.23 percent of the sum of its members’ GDPs until 2020. That was a tragic mistake. The EU cannot survive with a budget of this size.

At least 30 billion euros a year will be needed for the EU to carry out a comprehensive asylum plan. These funds are needed both inside the union — to build effective border and asylum agencies and ensure dignified reception conditions, fair asylum procedures, and opportunities for integration — as well as outside its borders — to support refugee-hosting countries and spur job creation throughout Africa and the Middle East. Robust border and asylum agencies alone could cost on the order of 15 billion euros.

Although 30 billion euros might seem like an enormous amount, it pales in comparison to the political, human, and economic costs of a protracted crisis. There is a real threat, for instance, that Europe’s Schengen system of open internal borders will collapse. The Bertelsmann Foundation has estimated that abandoning Schengen would cost the EU between 47 billion and 140 billion euros in GDP lost each year.

The current approach is based on reallocating minimal amounts from the EU budget and then asking member states to contribute to various dedicated vehicles, such as the Facility for Refugees in Turkey and the EU Regional Trust Fund for Syria, which were used, respectively, to provide financial compensation for Turkey and additional EU funding to international organizations and neighboring countries as a response to the Syrian crisis. These, however, can only be a temporary solution, as they are neither sustainable nor large enough to finance efforts that must grow in size and scope. Although these trust funds can be powerful instruments in the short term to redeploy resources and allow member states to commit more funds to a particular endeavor, they also illustrate the fundamental deficiency of the current system — namely that it remains dependent on the good will of the member states at each step.

In order to raise the necessary funds in the short term, the EU will need to engage in what I call “surge funding.” This entails raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU’s relatively small budget, rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year. Today, the EU stands out for having a remarkably low amount of debt given the size of its budget; it should therefore leverage this budget like all sovereign governments in the world do.

Spending a large amount at the outset in that way will allow the EU to respond more effectively to some of the most dangerous consequences of the refugee crisis and prevent some of its worst consequences. These include anti-immigrant sentiment in its member states that has fueled support for authoritarian political parties and despondency among those seeking refuge in Europe, who now find themselves marginalized in Middle East host countries or stuck in transit in Greece. Making large initial investments in border protection, search-and-rescue operations, asylum processing, and dignified refugee sheltering will help tip the economic, political, and social dynamics away from xenophobia and disaffection and toward constructive outcomes that benefit refugees and host countries alike. In the long run, this will reduce the total amount of money Europe will have to spend to contain and recover from the refugee crisis.

To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later. In the meantime, needs can be partially met by mobilizing the unused credit of already existing EU financial instruments: balance-of-payments assistance, Macro-Financial Assistance, and the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM). These instruments together have more than 50 billion euros of unused credit available. The facilities would have to be repurposed and their mandate expanded, which would meet considerable resistance. But those are not good enough reasons to avoid tapping the unused financial capacity of the European Union.

At the height of the euro crisis, member states were able to summon the political will to rapidly create a new set of instruments that vastly augmented the financial power of the EU. The EFSM, which then became the European Stability Mechanism, raised the borrowing capacity of the EU to some 500 billion euros in just a year, proving that when there is a will, there is a way. But all these instruments face three limitations: They are mostly intergovernmental and rely on member-state guarantees rather than the EU budget, which remains too small to undertake such large borrowing; they require unanimous authorization by the member states; and they are essentially designed to lend money to other member states rather than engage true spending in the name of the EU.

The only way ahead is to form “coalitions of the willing” that do not require unanimous consent. These initiatives could inspire deeper reforms of the EU budget. I was therefore greatly encouraged last year when German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble suggested a pan-European gasoline tax. I was soon disillusioned, however, when he explicitly warned against utilizing the largely unused borrowing power of the European Union.

The very existence of the European Union is at stake. It is the height of irresponsibility and a dereliction of duty to allow the EU to disintegrate without utilizing all its financial resources. Throughout history, governments have issued bonds in response to national emergencies. When should the EU use its largely untapped borrowing capacity if not at a moment when it is in mortal danger? Doing so would have the additional advantage of providing a much needed economic stimulus. With interest rates at historic lows, now is a particularly favorable moment to take on such debt.

Soros ehdottaa maahanmuuttosuunnitelmansa rahoittamista varaamalla EU-budjettiin aluksi vähintään 30 miljardia euroa vuodessa, jotka hankittaisiin lyhyellä tähtäimellä erilaisilla velkavipukikkailuilla ja pitemmällä tähtäimellä yhteisillä EU-veroilla. Soros perustelee miljardibudjettia kaikkein pahimpien pakolaiskriisin seurausten estämisellä. Niistä ainoana hän mainitsee "maahanmuuttovastaiset tunnelmat". Sorosin ehdottamilla investoinneilla meritaksipalveluun ja vastaanottopalvelujen parantamiseen kuulemma käännettäisiin ilmapiiri pois muukalaisvastaisuudesta ja tyytymättömyydestä, jolloin sekä pakolaiset että vastaanottajamaat hyötyisivät. Mitähän kautta?

Koska Soros ei usko, että kaikki maat kannattaisivat suunnitelmaa yksimielisesti, hänen mielestään ainoa tapa edetä on muodostaa "coalition of the willing", halukkaiden maiden ryhmä.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
Fourth, the crisis must be used to build common European mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees. Some modest progress is underway: Legislation establishing a European Border and Coast Guard was adopted this month by the European Parliament. But the Dublin III Regulation — the basis of determining which country bears responsibility for processing and hosting asylum-seekers — prevents solidarity among EU member states by putting most of the burden on the country of first entrance; it needs to be renegotiated.

A European solution is currently emerging on the ground in Greece, where the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) de facto examines asylum applications in order to assist the overwhelmed Greek authorities. A single European asylum procedure would remove the incentives for asylum shopping and rebuild trust among member states.

Soros haluaa EU:lle yhteisen turvapaikkapolitiikan, joka määrittelisi turvapaikkakriteerit ja turvapaikanhakijoiden jakamisen jäsenmaiden kesken. Koska nykyinen Dublin-sopimus "estää solidaarisuuden" eli estäisi jäsenmaiden pakkokiintiöt, Soros romuttaisi sopimuksen.

Kun on luotu yksi yhteinen turvapaikkapolitiikka, on Sorosin mielestä luontevaa siirtää turvapaikkahakemusten käsittely EU:lle. Soros mainitsee näin tapahtuvan jo Kreikassa, jossa EASO (Euroopan turvapaikka-asioiden tukivirasto) käytännössä käsittelee turvapaikkahakemukset. Tämä oli minulle uusi tieto, mutta varoitin tästä EASO:n roolin muuttumisesta heti vuonna 2010, kun virasto perustettiin.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
Fifth, once refugees have been recognized, there needs to be a mechanism for relocating them within Europe in an agreed way. It will be crucial for the EU to fundamentally rethink the implementation of its stillborn resettlement and relocation programs; a tentative step in this direction was taken last week in new proposals put forth by the European Commission. The union cannot coerce either member states or refugees to participate in these programs. They must be voluntary; a matching scheme could elicit preferences from both refugees and receiving communities so that people end up where they want to be and where they are welcome. EASO has begun to develop such a matching scheme.

These programs should be deeply anchored in communities. Mayors across Europe have shown a remarkable willingness to receive refugees but have been thwarted by national governments. Public-private sponsorship programs — wherein small groups of individuals, community organizations, and companies support newcomers, financially and otherwise, as they negotiate schools, job markets, and communities — could benefit from the untapped goodwill of citizens throughout Europe.

Canada provides a good role model (although its geographic context differs from Europe’s). In just four months, it admitted 25,000 Syrian refugees and is integrating them through public-private partnerships and local nonprofits. The government has promised to accept another 10,000 Syrians by year’s end and 44,000 refugees in total in 2016. (At the same time, it is admitting 300,000 migrants in total every year; this would be the equivalent of the EU accepting 4.5 million migrants annually.)

The process by which Canada resettles refugees has been refined through repeated use over a long period of time and passes even the hyperstringent security standards of its southern neighbor. The vetting of Syrian asylum-seekers was meticulously carried out by some 500 consular and military officials mobilized immediately after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office last November and made the project a top priority. Both the public and media responded positively, despite the shock of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which occurred at the height of Canada’s Syrian refugee program. Determined leadership from the top, close coordination with receiving local communities, robust screening and resettlement procedures, and honesty in confronting inevitable problems — these were the main ingredients of success. Compare that to conditions prevailing in Europe, and you get an indication of the distance that the EU has to travel.

Soros esittää EU:lle jakomekanismia, joka perustuisi vapaaehtoisuuteen, ei missään nimessä pakkoon. Tämä on sikäli outo vaatimus, että toisaalla Soros vaati solidaarisuuden ja taakanjaon nimissä nykyisen Dublin-sopimuksen purkamista. Dublin-sopimus ei kuitenkaan mitenkään estä turvapaikanhakijoiden vapaaehtoista vastaanottoa.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
Sixth, the European Union, together with the international community, must support foreign refugee-hosting countries far more generously than it currently does. The required support is in part financial, so that countries such as Jordan can provide adequate schooling, housing, training, and health care to refugees, and partly in the form of trade preferences, so that these countries can provide employment both to refugees and to their own populations. It simply does not make sense for Europe to commit upwards of 200 billion euros between 2015 and 2020 to deal with the crisis on its own shores — this is the amount member states are on track to spend on refugee reception and integration — when a small fraction of that amount spent abroad would have kept the influx of migrants to manageable proportions.

Equally, the EU must be more generous in its approach to Africa and not merely offer financial aid in exchange for migration controls, as the European Commission proposed last month. This approach simply empowers African leaders to wield migration as a threat against Europe, much as Erdogan has done. Instead, it must focus on real development in Africa. This means free trade, massive investment, and a commitment to rooting out corruption.

Some leaders in Europe have called for a Marshall Plan for Africa. This is an admirable ambition. But when it comes to the details, Europe is far away from such a vision. After World War II, the United States invested 1.4 percent of its GDP to help rebuild Europe — every year for four years. An investment on the scale of the original Marshall Plan would require around 270 billion euros a year for the next four years, a number we are very far from.

Sitten Soros esittää, että EU:n pitäisi rahoittaa avokätisesti pakolaisia majoittavia maita ja Afrikkaa. Sorosin mukaan investointi kannattaa, koska pakolaiskriisin hinta on moninkertainen. Väite on älytön. Kymmenien ja satojen miljardien eurojen pumppaaminen ulkomaille ei vaikuta Euroopan pakolaiskriisiin ja sen kustannuksiin sitä eikä tätä, etenkin jos samalla otetaan vastaan satojatuhansia ihmisiä kiintiöpakolaisina. Tiukka maahanmuuttopolitiikka, Eurooppaan tulon estäminen ja Euroopasta poistamisen tehostaminen vaikuttavat.

Jos kuitenkin leikitään "samalla rahalla"-leikkiä, niin vääjäämätön johtopäätös on, että Eurooppaan ei pidä hyväksyä turvapaikanhakijoita eikä asuttaa pakolaisia lainkaan.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
The seventh and final pillar is that, given its aging population, Europe must eventually create an environment in which economic migration is welcome. Merkel opened Germany’s doors wide to refugees, but her generous act was not well thought through; it ignored the pull factor. A sudden influx of more than a million asylum-seekers overwhelmed the capacity of the authorities, turning public opinion against migrants. Now the EU urgently needs to limit the overall inflow of newcomers, and it can do so only by discriminating against economic migrants. Hopefully, this is temporary, but while it lasts, it is both inappropriate and damaging.

The benefits brought by migration far outweigh the costs of integrating immigrants. Skilled economic immigrants improve productivity, generate growth, and raise the absorptive capacity of the recipient country. Different populations bring different skills, but the contributions come as much from the innovations they introduce as from their specific skills — in both their countries of origin and their countries of destination. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, starting with the Huguenots’ contribution to the first industrial revolution by bringing both weaving and banking to England. All the evidence supports the conclusion that migrants have a high potential to contribute to innovation and development if they are given a chance to do so.

Lopuksi Soros todistelee, että maahanmuutto hyödyttää aina vastaanottavaa maata. Tästä on kuulemma runsaasti anekdoottitason todisteita kuten hugenottien kontribuutio ensimmäiseen teolliseen vallankumoukseen tuomalla Englantiin kutominen ja pankkitoiminta.

Sorosin suunnitelma on epälooginen, perustelematon ja ristiriitainen, mutta täysin linjassa EU-johdon pitkän tähtäimen CEAS-suunnitelman kanssa. Eikä suunnitelman ole tarkoituskaan toimia, vaan tärkein tavoite on kaapata maahanmuuttopoliittinen päätösvalta kansallisilta parlamenteilta EU:lle ja näin heikentää kansallisten EU- ja maahanmuuttokriittisten puolueiden asemaa.
Mediaseuranta - Maahanmuuttoaiheiset uutiset, tiedotteet ja tutkimukset

Lumiukko Jeti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 2 962
  • Liked: 5295
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #50 : 21.07.2016, 17:08:41 »
Soroksen suunnitelma = EU komission pakollinen taakanjako =  Soroksen suunnitelma.

Miksi Soros edes julkaisi tuon kirjoituksen? Tämä kopio komission koko viime syksyn ja kevään ajamasta strategiasta.
" I know that virtually none of you have never done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. "
- Nigel Farage EU parlamentille 28.6.2016

hattiwatti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 883
  • Liked: 6026
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #51 : 21.07.2016, 17:14:55 »
Soroksen suunnitelma saada EU pumppaamaan rahaa milloin mihinkin kaaokseen jonka Soroksen aiempi ikävien hallintojen destabilisointi-toiminta on saanut aikaan. Ihan looginen ja johdonmukainen linja.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-soros-idUSKBN0KH0NQ20150108
Lainaus
Billionaire financier George Soros has urged the West to step up aid to Ukraine, outlining steps towards a $50 billion financing package that he said should be viewed as a bulwark against an increasingly aggressive Russia.
Ei siitä niin kauaa ole, kun Soros vaati antamaan vaatimattomat 50 miljardia Ukrainaan (josta se valuisi takaisin Soroksen hedge-fundeihin), näin maasta tulee paratiisi, ja Venäläisetkin vaihtaisivat hallintoaan päästäkseen samaan tukipakettiparatiisiin ja EU:n arvot pelastuvat.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/02/05/new-policy-rescue-ukraine/

Lainaus
Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia. Assisting Ukraine should also be considered as a defense expenditure by the EU countries. Framed this way, the amounts currently contemplated shrink into insignificance. If the international authorities fail to come up with an impressive assistance program in response to an aggressive Ukrainian reform program, the new Ukraine will probably fail, Europe will be left on its own to defend itself against Russian aggression, and Europe will have abandoned the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. That would be an irreparable loss.
....
By contrast, if Europe rose to the challenge and helped Ukraine not only to defend itself but to become a land of promise, Putin could not blame Russia’s troubles on the Western powers. He would be clearly responsible and he would either have to change course or try to stay in power by brutal repression, cowing people into submission. If he fell from power, an economic and political reformer would be likely to succeed him. Either way, Putin’s Russia would cease to be a potent threat to Europe. Which alternative prevails will make all the difference not only to the future of Russia and its relationship with the European Union but also to the future of the European Union itself. By helping Ukraine, Europe may be able to recapture the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded.

Luonnollisesti tuo kuulostaa Euroopan vihollisen seniileiltä houreilta, mutta saavat komppausta yllättävältä taholta jonka mukaan myös Ukrainan kaltainen mafiaklaanien hallitsema kehitysmaa pitää saada EU:n tukipakettien piiriin, jotta Venäjä ei uhkaisi EU:n arvoja.

https://eublogg.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/true-finns-we-see-russia-as-a-threat/

EUbloggen have done an email interview with MEP Jussi Halla-aho from True Finns (ECR-group).
Lainaus
Sweden Democrats argues that a Yes to Association Agreement is a Yes of EU-enlargement of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldavia, do you agree?

– I disagree. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova do not meet or even approach the criteria for membership. The decisions taken by the parliament aim to lessen the economic dependence of Ukraine from Russia and thereby strengthen the democratic process in that country. We see Russia as a threat to European security and values and think it is strategically necessary to remove countries like Ukraine from the ”grey zone” and Russian sphere of influence.

^ Eurooppalaisten ARVOJEN suojeleminen Suomiduunarin selkänahasta nyhdetyin tukipaketein mainittu! Minä en ainakaan pysty löytämään tämän ruotsidemokraattien haastatteleman MEPin, joka nousi valtaan vaalimainoksella jossa vastustettiin tukipaketteja ja tulonsiirtounionia, ja George Soroksen linjausten väliltä yhtään yhtikäs mitään eroa. Paitsi että jälkimmäinen on törkeän röyhkeän rehellinen, siinä kun ensimmäinen ei ole. Mutta kaikki tälläinen on tavattoman mielenkiintoista ja tärkeää tutkia, sillä jostain samasta komentokeskuksesta nämä jutut ja milteinpä identtiset fraasitkin kumpuavat.

Roope

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 27 199
  • Liked: 35153
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #52 : 21.07.2016, 17:17:24 »
Soroksen suunnitelma = EU komission pakollinen taakanjako =  Soroksen suunnitelma.

Sanoo ajavansa ehdottoman vapaaehtoista taakanjakoa:
Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
Fifth, once refugees have been recognized, there needs to be a mechanism for relocating them within Europe in an agreed way. It will be crucial for the EU to fundamentally rethink the implementation of its stillborn resettlement and relocation programs; a tentative step in this direction was taken last week in new proposals put forth by the European Commission. The union cannot coerce either member states or refugees to participate in these programs. They must be voluntary; a matching scheme could elicit preferences from both refugees and receiving communities so that people end up where they want to be and where they are welcome.

Mutta toisaalta vaatii uudenlaista Dublin-sopimusta, jotta solidaarisuus ja (pakollinen) taakanjako:
Lainaus käyttäjältä: George Soros
...renegotiate the Dublin III Regulation in order to more fairly share the asylum burden across the EU.
...
But the Dublin III Regulation — the basis of determining which country bears responsibility for processing and hosting asylum-seekers — prevents solidarity among EU member states by putting most of the burden on the country of first entrance; it needs to be renegotiated.
Mediaseuranta - Maahanmuuttoaiheiset uutiset, tiedotteet ja tutkimukset

hattiwatti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 883
  • Liked: 6026
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #53 : 21.07.2016, 17:18:30 »
Sorry, unohtui mainita että kyllähän nyt kaikki tajuavat, että tukipakettivaatimukset matuille ja rupumaille tähtännevät samaan, Soroksen kannalta hyvinkin loogiseen päämäärään. Se ei ole loogista, että kukaan poliitikko kannattaa yhtä ja vastustaa toista, mutta kukin tyylillään.

Heikki Luoto on tehnyt tärkeää työtä kääntäessään aiheesta kertovia artikkeleja; foorumilla ketjukin aiheesta.

http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,108896.msg2117963.html#msg2117963

http://aamulehdenblogit.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wayne-madsen-sorosin-ja-cia-n-suunnitelma-ep-vakauttaa-eurooppa
Lainaus
Wayne Madsen: Sorosin ja CIA:n suunnitelma epävakauttaa Eurooppa [pakolaiskriisillä]

http://aamulehdenblogit.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wayne-madsen-euroopan-pakolaisinvaasion-sek-v-rivallankumouksien

Siener

  • Jäsen^^
  • **
  • Viestejä: 380
  • Liked: 432
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #54 : 21.07.2016, 17:20:10 »
Piipahdin jo kerran unholasta tänne, jolloin sanoin että vielä jokusen kerran kummittelen... tämä on toinen kerta. Kolmas tulee Berner-ketjuun, kunhan jaksan vaivautua...

No niin. On tuo Yhdysvaltain kuudes laivasto, jonka päämaja on Italian Napolissa. Kyseinen kuudes laivasto on viime vuosina kunnostautunut siinä, että se ottaa hellään huomaansa kaikki Afrikan puolelta tulleet kumiveneet ja vastaavat, ja auttavat ne turvallisesti perille Italian puolelle.

Sattumoisin äskeisen Nato-kokouksen aikoihin tuon kuudennen laivaston lippulaiva, Mount Whitney, oli "ystävyysvierailulla" Suomessa, Vuosaaren logistiikkakeskuksessa. Kyseinen alus pystyy ottamaan haltuunsa sijaitsemallaan alueella kaiken tietoliikenteen.

Olihan se hassua, että Hommaforum oli tuona aikana alhaalla, ja puolustusministerinä perussuomalainen? Please?...

hattiwatti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 883
  • Liked: 6026
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #55 : 21.07.2016, 17:26:46 »
Lainaus
´
Sattumoisin äskeisen Nato-kokouksen aikoihin tuon kuudennen laivaston lippulaiva, Mount Whitney, oli "ystävyysvierailulla" Suomessa, Vuosaaren logistiikkakeskuksessa. Kyseinen alus pystyy ottamaan haltuunsa sijaitsemallaan alueella kaiken tietoliikenteen.

Olihan se hassua, että Hommaforum oli tuona aikana alhaalla, ja puolustusministerinä perussuomalainen? Please?...

En sano tästä kirjoittajasta mitään, mutta tuleehan tässä kaikkea ajoituksellisesti mielenkiintoista yhteensattumaa:

http://juhamolari.blogspot.fi/2016/07/pentagonin-propellipaat-jessikka-aron.html

Lainaus
Tämän jälkeen alkaa Joel Hardingin vähintään yhtä merkillinen vuodatus kommentissaan.

”Huono uutinen on, että Jessikka Aro oli puhumassa eräässä konferenssissa Liettuassa eilen, ja Juha Molari oli siellä, kuvasi hänen puhettaan vihanlietsonnasta. He jatkavat hyökkäystä.”

Todella siisti asia on, että me löysimme kyber haavoittuvuuden hyväksemme, ja siisti asia on että se on täysin laillinen! Aiomme laittaa alas seitsemän heidän sivustoistaan… Tietysti he alkavat sijoittaa niitä jonnekin muualle, mutta kun saamme selville, toivottava he eivät ole kiintyneitä haavoittuvuuteensa

”Olen myös työskentelemässä Suomen hallituksen kanssa. Noin kolmesta muustakin asiasta, plus saamme julkisuutta Suomen lehdistöss”.


Jaska Pankkaaja

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 7 757
  • Liked: 5667
  • Finlayson, Fazer ja nyt myös Firas
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #56 : 21.07.2016, 17:34:48 »
Tämän peliliikkeen siis pystyisi tekemään pelkästään taloustuntemuksella ja tarkalla vainulla. Miljoonat mamut ovat pitemmän aikavälin projekti. Soros ei hae mamuilla pikavoittoa.

Tietyt tahot ovat tienneet jo vuosisatoja että kun veri virtaa kaduilla on ostokelit.. Siis kyllä nimenomaan pikavoittoja on luvassa.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. J.F Kennedy

Hämeenlinnan Oraakkeli

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 8 027
  • Liked: 2370
  • لا يوجد إله غيره من الشيطان والنبي محمدا أو خادمته
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #57 : 21.07.2016, 17:56:38 »
Että työ jaksatte suoltaa tätä hevonpaskaa. Soros vastaa ehkä jotaim 0,?% koko rahapotista, ja veronmaksajat lopuista. Eikö olisi järkevämpää pohtia sitä että mitenkä matu tulva saataisiin estettyä.

Lumiukko Jeti

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 2 962
  • Liked: 5295
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #58 : 21.07.2016, 18:02:11 »
Että työ jaksatte suoltaa tätä hevonpaskaa. Soros vastaa ehkä jotaim 0,?% koko rahapotista, ja veronmaksajat lopuista. Eikö olisi järkevämpää pohtia sitä että mitenkä matu tulva saataisiin estettyä.

Kovasti Sorosta kuitenkin kiinnostaa ja komission suunnitelmaa esittelee omanaan. Tai voi se olla toisinkinpäin, komissio esitteli Soroksen visiot omana strategianaan.

Haluaako Soros alleviivata että suunnitelma on hänen ? Ja kenelle Soros alleviivaa, huutomerkittää ja hymiöittää että suunnitelma on alunperin hänen ?

Tuota ihan samaa laulua on nimittäin laulanut niin Merkel kuin Druncker.

Ei tämä nyt ihan sattumaa ole.

" I know that virtually none of you have never done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. "
- Nigel Farage EU parlamentille 28.6.2016

rölli2

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 2 898
  • Liked: 1768
    • Profiili
Vs: George Soros (yhdistetty)
« Vastaus #59 : 21.07.2016, 18:22:28 »
kostaako soros holokaustin koko euroopalle :o