Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Soros Resurfaces

I once compared George Soros to Keyser Soze. His ability to stay in the shadows and not attract too much attention while waging an aggressive campaign against the fabric of the U.S. was very much Soze like. At the time, I thought he had made a tactical error because three separate stories had originated with groups he funded at roughly the same time. His name became quite popular for a while however the media attention eventually died down.

He has been linked to another scandalous story. The Lancet published a study in 2006 claimed that the death toll in Iraq was 655,000. There were several things that made the findings dubious. Despite being questioned by many quarters, there were several of the usual suspects that began to use it as gospel. This Lancet Study became a rallying cry for such folks as Media Matters, Rosie O'Donnell, Daily Kos, ACORN, and others.

It turns out that this Lancet Study was funded in part by the Open Society Institute. The OSI is one of many so called 527 front groups that Soros uses to try and radically change our society. The fascinating part about this is how his Modus Operandi becomes clear by tracking it.

This Lancet Study which was a collaboration between several Ivy League schools and it got half its funds from a grant by OSI. The results were happily used by all sorts of allies of Soros to poison the water even further. There is an old saying that goes like this...

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on

That's what Soros has done here and it is very much the manner in which he has employed his strategy to not only buy the Presidency but ultimately force his radical vision upon the U.S.

One of his surrogates funds a study that produce the results that he wanted. Last summer he employed a similar tactic upon Bill O'Reilly. This study concluded that O'Reilly said a derogatory name toward a group or individual once every 6.8 seconds. Of course, what the proprietors of the study failed to disclose was that they considered words like conservative, liberal and moderate to be derogatory. Only when the study was investigated did we find out about its dubious methodology. (...) Similarly, not only did a Soros linked group commission the study, but other Soros linked groups promoted the study. Media Matters immediately made hey of the study and Olbermann publicized it as well. Those are just a couple of groups in the Soros media machine that took this bogus study and tried to filter it into the mainstream and try and legitimize it.

That seems to be his Modus Operandi. He will use one of his surrogates to front money for a study that will use methodology that will back up the conclusion he favors. Then, his other surrogates will prop up the story in an effort to legitimize it and deliver it into the mainstream. The likes of Media Matters and will first publicize a story, and then media like certain elements at NBC and Rosie will filter it into the maistream on more popular shows.

Whether it is the likes of Media Matters, Move, or elements at NBC, the NY Times, and other places, Soros can literally create a reality and then filter that new created reality through sympathetic media in order insert that new reality into the mainstream.

The link to Soros himself is ultimately quite complicated. Take a look at this now famous diagram from O'Reilly...

Soros will use any number of these groups working in conjunction to attack any opponent or concept and he will use any means necessary, including distorting facts, to present things favorable to his point of view. was responsible for the Betray Us Ad. Media Matters promoted to supposed slur that they claimed Rush made at the military.

All of it is ingenius because it is all totally legal. It is near impossible to trace Soros himself to any of this. These sorts of stories can be put into the mainstream almost with impugnity.

I believe the only way to stop him is for him and his plans to become a mainstream story rather than a fringe story.


Mark In Irvine said...

I take it that you are saying that studies, reports, commentaries, etc., by individuals or groups funded by individuals (or other groups) with a political agenda are not trustworthy and should be ignored or discounted. If the "right" had followed that guideline, where would that have left the Swift Boat effort and all the media attention funded by Richard Scaife? Ignored, where it belonged, I suggest.

mike volpe said...

Not exactly, though I am glad you commented because this is an important point to make clear.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a study being funded by groups with an agenda. If they are though, that group and its agenda must be disclosed.

In this case, it goes further than that. Not only did Soros try to hide his connection by using one of the plethora of front groups he controls, but the study's methodology was skewed. This is not the first time that a Soros linked study had methodology that was skewed.

This latest case is an example of the extremes that Soros will go in order to create a reality that doesn't exist.

Mark In Irvine said...

Your comments about Soros can be applied to the same effect as to groups on the right as well. I would have to revisit the Swift Boat controversy (which I don't have time to do at this point) to see whether all the connections between the Swift Boaters and the Republican Party and the G.W. Bush campaign were disclosed in the way you are suggesting. See, e.g.,

2KoolKirk said...

Mark, it is beyond infuriating, childish, and ultimately ineffective when someone attacks a point with a lame "I know you are but what am I" counterpoint. Do you have anything to debate or counter the facts on what Soros is doing? This is the thrust of the article and by any measure, true. Do you approve of this blatant manipulation and mindlessless of the media to simply be fed their story lines in this manner?

Mark In Irvine said...

2KoolKirk: I disagree with you that what Soros is doing is "blatant manipulation and mindlessness of the media to simply be fed their story lines in this manner". The way I figure it, the right has its Richard Scaifes and its Swiftboat Veterans, why shouldn't the "left" have its MoveOns and its George Soros(es). The right wing has dominated the media in this country for the duration of the GWB administration, and we need (and I tend to agree with) a "counterpoint" to that domination. Oh, I suspect that you'll say that it is the left which dominates the media, but I don't think that's true: while you can find articles about things not going so well in Iraq, for instance, you NEVER find articles that discuss how the lingering fear of 9-11 was exploited by GWB and the members of the "Project For A New American Century" to trick the US into going into Iraq unprovoked.

mike volpe said...

Mark, you are so wrong on so many levels that I hope I don't forget anything.

First, your comparison between Soros and the SBVT is silly and amateurish. The SBVT gave eye witness testimony to an event whereas both the Lancet Study and the IU study were pieces of academic research. The two situations are totally different.

Second, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough in the piece because you clearly aren't grasping the scope of Soros' manipulation. He creates a study and then feeds that bogus study to surrogates whose job it is to mainstream it. Nothing that organized happened in the SBVT. Finally, Soros has resources unlike anyone short of Bill Gates.

I believe you also claimed that the media was biased because and I will quote you...

"the lingering fear of 9-11 was exploited by GWB and the members of the "Project For A New American Century" to trick the US into going into Iraq unprovoked."

That is off the charts paranoia. The media is biased because some obscure link wasn't made enough to your satisfaction.

Finally, you do what Bill O'Reilly refers to as excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Scaife is not the issue except in your mind. You are basically saying that we should disregard this individual who is able to manufacture a bogus study and then create media buzz around it because you think there is someone worse with the opposite political persuasion. What kind of a ridiculous arguement is that?

Mark In Irvine said...

What I am pointing out is that your attack on the Lancet is that Soros-affiliated groups were involved in it and that “the usual suspects … began to use it as gospel” so that the study cannot be anything other than biased. Such an argument is overloaded with logical fallacies which distract the reader from the fact that you never attempt to counter the accuracy of the study with evidence bearing on the subject.

I’m sure you can quote some source, but the truth is that the GWB administration (with the vigorous support of the people behind the "Project For A New American Century", who had been pushing for an Iraqi invasion for years before 9/11) decided to go into Iraq without waiting to verify whether Saddam Hussein was at all involved in 9/11 or had the WMDs which Condoleezza [sp?] Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and GWB were holding over our heads like Damocles’ sword to induce support for the Iraqi invasion.

If you argue that others, including Dems, had the same mistaken belief about Saddam and the WMD, you are essentially attempting to excuse this administration’s shirking of its responsibility to vet the intelligence and determine whether the grounds asserted in support of the Iraq invasion were accurate, by pointing to other “bad behavior”.

mike volpe said...

Mark, the study is biased because the methodology used is bunk. The point I was making wasn't that the study was biased because Soros used. The methodology of this study was attacked long ago by several sources of all stripes...

It was interesting and not surprising when we found out that Soros was using this biased study.

Typical of folks like you, you seem to insist on changing the topic from Soros which is what the piece is about to Bush, who is not directly involved. That is frankly the point. Mark, you have weak debating skills. You clearly don't read carefully. You can never stay on topic, and you really don't understand the point your opponent is making and thus respond with gibberish. Work on your presentation.

Mark In Irvine said...

OK - I get your point about "methodology", but your piece focussed not the study methodology, but only on the Soros-affiliation, as if that were enough to invalidate the Lancet study. Criticism of the Lancet study solely on the grounds of the Soros-affiliation of persons involved in some way is logically fallacious: even if the study did reach results which Soros wanted, even if some group that received funds from Soros was involved in the study, the study could still be an accurate piece of work with accurate results/description of the situation on the ground. The better argument against the study would focus on some other reliable study that reached different results/conclusions.

mike volpe said...

Mark, once again, I didn't dismiss the study because Soros was involved. The study was dismissed long before we found out he was tied to it. That is the way in which he the shadows. It is very difficult to track down his influence.

That is a separate point. The study was debunked months ago. It has now surfaced that he paid for half the study.

This is not the first time that he paid for a study with bad methodology. He did it to O'Reilly months back as well.

That is his M.O. Also, he has surrogates promote the story in order to mainstream it...that is where Media Matters, ACORN,, Daily Kos and the like come one

Fritz_Katz said...

Methinks "Mark In Irvine" is beyond the pale of rational thought. It's pointless to even acknowledge his tired talking points. Progressives are not capable of thinking logically -- they traffic in smear and inuendo. And, when the weight of the opposing arguement overwhelms their small minds they just change the subject to something totally unrelated. We just saw Mark try this tactic in bringing in the Swift boat veterans.

Perhaps Mark is working for Soros?

Mark In Irvine said...

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

mike volpe said...


thank you for the definition however what does it have to do with the price of tea in China.

Some folks have taken the opportunity to throw in a personal attack along with pointing out the fallacy of your arguement however the arguement is fallacious whether there was an ad hominem attack attached or not.

You presented a false comparison that was careless and off topic anyway. Your arguement or lack thereof speaks for itself, Res Ipsa Loquitor.

Mark In Irvine said...

I get a kick out of seeing how quickly readers of "conservative" blogs resort to personal attacks when someone pops up and disagrees with the consensus and makes the effort to argue on topic and/or point out hypocrisy.

mike volpe said...


actually, resorting to ad hominem personal attacks is not exclusive to conservative blogs.

That is frankly besides the point. You have made a frivilous arguement.

You compared the SBVT to the Lancet study even thought the two are not comparable. This was one of several instances in which your comparisons were illogical.

You are now making hey about ad hominem attacks and counter arguements only as a means of changing the subject now that your faulty logic has been exposed.

Mark In Irvine said...

"You compared the SBVT to the Lancet study even thought the two are not comparable."

You are right: the SBVT joke was directly subsidized by Republican torch-bearers and was in no way independent from them, whereas the Lancet exists independently of Soros (before and after he lent any support to it) and has independent credibility.

I understand that people may disagree with my views, but I don't need to resort to name-calling as against people who disagree with me (unlike some: infuriating, childish, lame, folks like you, weak debating skills, don't read carefully, never stay on topic [never? wtf?], gibberish).

"actually, resorting to ad hominem personal attacks is not exclusive to conservative blogs"

I know this, but so-called liberal blogs do this appear as idiotic as anyone who does it.

mike volpe said...

Let's leave the validity of the SBVT for just a minute.

The Lancet and the IU study were studies. These were academic pieces of work that were corrupted by a biased methodology. Each of these was funded by Soros. Soros then used intermediaries to put these faulty findings into the mainstream.

That is totally different from what happened with the SBVT. That is beside the point anyway. The SBVT are not the issue, and trying to deflect the issue by bringing them up is a cheap and tired debating tactic.

You've basically discounted Soros relevance by pointint to the SBVT who were totally different and weren't influence by one individual nearly as much.

Furthermore, you rely upon innuendo and assertions in order to make that leap.

Not only is your comparison to the SBVT not proper, but it relies on the most suspect of sources and conclusions to make it.

Mark In Irvine said...

actually, resorting to ad hominem personal attacks is not exclusive to conservative blogs

oh, I guess that makes it OK.

Mark In Irvine said...

These were academic pieces of work that were corrupted by a biased methodology.

I don't see any discussion of the methodology in your post.

mike volpe said...

Ad hominem attacks are the decorum of those debaters that are typically not that sophisticated, however my point is that the attacks are not exclusive to one ideology.

Mark, your arguement has been picked apart. You made a faulty comparison between the SBVT and the Lancet Study. This faulty comparison lead to a faulty conclusion. That is the issue. You are trying to change topics, however changing topics when you have been exposed is another hallmark of poor debating.

mike volpe said...

I linked to the pieces that questioned and picked apart the faulty methodology. This study has been exposed in many quarters long ago. There is really almost no debate anymore of its veracity, it has none. The new part of the story is the revelation that Soros helped fund it.

You have to be a serious loon to believe that there really have been 655K in Iraqi deaths.