The rants of billionaire George Soros against US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi should come as no surprise to those who are aware of his support to — and sponsorship of — an NGO called Independent Diplomat that fought for the independence of Kosovo. In November 2005, Soros had said, “My personal opinion is there’s no alternative but to give Kosovo independence.” And that was just one of the numerous NGOs he funded overtly or covertly. Trump’s irreverence for the left is well-known. So, Soros brands the POTUS as a “conman and the ultimate narcissist”. Even as he condemns Trump by saying the latter “is willing to sacrifice the national interests for his personal interests and he will do practically anything to win re-election,” he is paranoid about Xi too when he says, “Xi Jinping is eager to exploit Trump’s weaknesses and use artificial intelligence to achieve total control over his people.” The Modi regime has gone after the NGOs since 2014, with FCRA violations as the ruse, much as the Indian prime minister must have wanted to find a way to deprive the disrupting elements of their ability to sneak into parties and governments to influence the politics of the nation. “The biggest and most frightening setback occurred in India where a democratically elected Narendra Modi is creating a Hindu nationalist state, imposing punitive measures on Kashmir, a semi-autonomous Muslim region, and threatening to deprive millions of Muslims of their citizenship,” Soros, therefore, describes Modi’s New India.
Even if conspiracy theories against him like Veronika Bondarenko calling him a “puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics”, Bill O’Reilly calling him an “extremist” and “off-the-charts dangerous”, Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg accusing him of being the “funder-in-chief” of the Remain campaign, then Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson blaming him for bankrolling a conspiracy to remove him from power, etc are discounted, Muslim rulers are ill at ease with him too. President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had alleged Soros had financed terrorists during the Gezi incidents. Soros is known to finance NGOs that create a ruckus in their protests against Israel’s policies. His Open Society Foundation challenges “Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies”. He is not comfortable with the rise of China as an economic power.
Does none of the allegations such as financing the 2017 Women’s March, gun-control regime, website Snopes, migration of central Americans into the US through its southern borders, anti-Brexit movement in Britain, etc stick? If they don’t, he still comes across as a leftist due to his economic theory of “reflexivity” where he tries to deny the investor a right to bias in investments. He opposes a free market and calls its advocacy “market fundamentalism”.
In short, Soros is an enemy of all successes, they may be achievements of individuals or feats of groups. He is against the individualism of both a person and a nation. Ergo, he would be ill at ease with India as much as Israel, China, Britain or Turkey rising on its own merit, choosing a path of its own. In the same vein, he would hate a Trump, a Xi and a Modi.
In a police investigation into an act of crime, if the cops first try to ascertain a motive of a suspect, Soros does have a motive in investing in places that stand against the people and countries he targets. When Trump won the election, Soros lost nearly $ 1 billion within weeks.
If there are conspiracy theories galore against Soros, he is himself no mean conspiracy theorist. He had said four years ago that Europe needed to “wake up and recognise that it is under attack from Russia”. He does not shy away from the fact that he funds movements worldwide, though. He need not, as when he had started it in the 1970s, it was for the noble cause of supporting black students of the University of Cape Town in a South Africa reeling under apartheid.
The adjective “liberal” rather than “leftist” would be apter for a character like Soros, for he supported the attempts of members of the Commonwealth of Independent States to emerge from the shadow of their Soviet past as much as he helped Hungary find a footing after it came out of the Warsaw Pact bloc. The negative shade in his character is a mix of supremacism and megalomania. He wishes you stay wretched so that you need his help. Like a white man of the racist age, he loves to look at the part of the world that is wallowing in misery so that he could appear as their angel for deliverance. It is the kind of mindset that gets the better of a large part of western Europe, and some parts of the US even in this day and age, where literature, cinema and other forms of art must depict villages, cities and nations crying for a messiah. The opportunity to throw breadcrumbs massages the ego of NGOs they run. Soros is a personification of that ego. If he sympathises with the demonstrators at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh, he is like Danny Boyle, the director of Slumdog Millionaire, who had identified Dharavi as Mumbai or like Mathieu Kassovitz to whom Marseilles looked like the whole of France in La Haïne.
But then, if there were no Vikas Swarup, could there be a Danny Boyle? Every Dracula needs an RM Renfield, the insider who would tell his master the house is a happy hunting ground. Ask the activists of JNU or AMU. But the house hosts also Abraham Van Helsing. Dracula hates Van Helsing. Soros hates Modi.