Wally Keeler > wrote:
>
>You are irrelevent -- PLUNK!
         ^^^^^^^^^^
                   \That's irrelevant -- PUNK!
>
>Gabor Barsai ) writes:
>> Oh, willy. Like you never made a mistake in your life!

Over and over again .............

Interesting... But I see no serious support for this hypothesis. If
your comment is genuine and not a simple attempt to bait someone,
please present your thesis with supporting data.

-- 

Regards,
Mike.

Email address is available upon request.


Jason Menayan > wrote in article
>...

: alexander the great was not greek, he was macedonian.  although not
: slavic, they were a different people back then.  much of macedonia
has
: since been absorbed into Greece.
: 
: Jason
: 
: -- 
: Jason Menayan
: 
: Serious mail gets a reply; flames get laughed at
:

-       I did not say "Albanian being the "official" diplomatic language"
        of Ottoman Empire; I said Armenian was the Ottoman diplomatic
        language.


Terribly sorry, I was thinking Armenian and spelled Albanian.  This was 
still not the total case.  You have to provide which years in order ot 
make it the official language for the entire hisotry of the Ottoman 
Eempire.  I think there is evidence to the contrary.

Here's some background information on George Soros wrt to another post on his 
membership in the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC). It is in 2 
parts.

______________________________________________________________________

Past posts provided an inkling of some of the shady and illegal business 
practices of Dwayne Orville Andreas, Chairman and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland
 
(ADM) which recently pleaded guilty to anti-trust and price-fixing violations 
and agreed to pay a $100 million fine. This post looks at George Soros, another
 
adviser  and original member of the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee 
(AUAC) sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). 
AUAC was initiated in Feb 1994 by CSIS Counselor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former 
U.S. national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, member of the Council
 
on Foreign Relations (CFR), and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission (TC).

The following comments are on  the Jan 23, 1995 issue of The New Yorker,  where
 
there appeared a fascinating and revealing 23-page article by Connie Bruck 
titled  "The world according to Soros" in which she asks:

"Why did the speculator George Soros suddenly decide to take his life public?  
It's a move that puzzles observers, who are also wondering if Soros's expanded 
role as a global trouble-shooter makes him an invaluable one-man foreign-policy
 
machine, as his supporters in the State Department contend, or an unregulated 
billionaire with a messiah complex."

Secrecy

For the many years since 1969, when he operated a hedge fund, and even when he 
became a philanthropist in 1986 in Budapest by starting his first "open 
society" foundation, he sought secrecy and anonymity. It wasn't until 1989, 
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that he tried to reposition  and 
strategically transform himself into a celebrity. In 1992 he himself arranged 
an interview with the London Times, where he boasted that his Quantum Fund and 
related firms borrowed nine billion dollars and  invested ten billion by 
speculating against the British pound, and profited two billion dollars when it
 
collapsed. 

Government & World Bank Connections

Bruck points out that the World Bank, through its private-sector arm, the 
International Finance Corporation (IFC), is a co-investor with Soros in some 
projects in deveoping countries. He has opened a Washington office and 
cultivated excellent relationships with high-ranking officials at the State and
 
Treasury Departments. For example, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State 
talks of synchronizing their approach to the former communist countries "with 
Germany, France, Great Britain - and with George Soros." Talbott feels that 
Soros's approach is compatible with the U.S. government and that Soros fills in
 
the gap left by dwindling government resources.

Duality and Detachment

Connie Bruck claims that Soros's intractable problem is the pattern of duality 
and detachment, with origins in 1944 - "a year that he has said he recalls more
 
vividly than any other in his life - when, aged fourteen, he posed as the son 
of a Hungarian government official as he delivered deportation notices to Jews,
 
or took possession of property owned by them. Self-control and detachment were 
the keys to survival."

Family Background

She points out that even though Soros is of Jewish background, an 
assimilationist Jew, (his family name had ben changed long ago from Schwartz 
although no reason is given for the change), he has been subjected to 
anti-Semitic attacks because he has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes 
from his massive philanthropy. Even Soros's mother was anti-semitic, acording 
to Soros himself: "My mother was quite anti-Semitic, and ashamed of being 
Jewish. Given the culture in which one lived, being Jewish was a clear-cut 
stigma, a disadvantage, a handicap - and, therefore, there was always the 
desire to transcend it, to escape it."  Soros goes on to say that "I am 
escaping the particular. I think I am doing exactly that by espousing this 
universal concept" -of open society. "In other words, I don't think that you 
can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe .... The only way you 
can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness."

Pushing The Limits

Bruck describes how Soros likes to push things to the limit, such as 
free-market principles. "Indeed, his fondness for what some in the Czech 
Republic view as excessive social engineering has led them to bandy it about 
that he is a 'closet Communist.' He is a philanthropist of historic proportions
 
and, now, a statesman in the making, but he is also a consummate gamesman, 
adept at finding tax loopholes and operating in gray areas where oversight is 
scant and maneuverability wide. Indeed, the sums that he managed not to pay the
 
I.R.S. for many years put his present giving in a slightly different light. And
 
the fact that he is perceived by many who have dealt with him as an autocratic 
master manipulator does, of course, make his spending many hundreds of millions
 
of dollars to promote the cultivation of open society a heady paradox."

Not Paying Taxes Via Offshore Quantum Fund

Bruck describes Soros's career as starting upon graduation from the London 
School of Economics in 1952, continuing as a stockbroker in various Wall Street
 
firms from 1956-66. In 1969, he raised four million dollars from private 
investors [not named] and launched Quantum fund offshore in the Netherland 
Antilles where it was "open only to non-United States citizens and residents 
(Soros managed to make himself an exception [though Bruck doesn't explain 
how]}, and investors' profits were not taxed until the money was repatriated." 
Soros took a 15 percent share of annual profits and re-invested his earnings 
tax-free.

Being Fined $75M and Stock Manipulation Case

The Netherland Antilles had very little regulatory oversight and provided an 
extremely unregulated environment.  " In 1986, Soros was fined seventy-five 
thousand dollars by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for having held 
positions in excess of speculative limits. (He had distributed them among 
various private accounts.) And in 1979 Soros had signed a consent decree (in 
which one neither admits nor denies guilt) in United States District Court, in 
a Securities and Exchane Commission case involving stock manipulation. The 
complaint charged that Soros had accumulated more than fifty-four thousand 
shares of stock in a company called Computer Sciences Corporation in the month 
before a planned public offering; and, in the days just prior to the offering, 
sold the stock aggressively. The complaint stated that Soros's actions, which 
induced others to sell as well and drove the price down, caused the offering 
price of the shares to be lowered; and he had then proceeded to buy shares, at 
the artificially low price."  

The technique in this stock manipulation case and other reports suggesting that
 
Soros obtained his start-up capital  from a modern-day Rothschild, reminds me 
of the story (described by authors James Dale Davidson and Sir William 
Rees-Mogg) of how Nathan M. Rothschild made a financial killing  of one million
 
pounds in London in 1815 - a fantastic sum in those days.  This was the time of
 
the critical Battle of Waterloo between Britain and France. The London markets 
were nervously awaiting results. Rothschild, invested considerable sums in a 
private intelligence network to learn about important results before they took 
place. It was known he bet heavily on a British victory. When he was the first 
to get the results, instead of buying more he surprisingly sold and  the market
 
knew he was selling. The result was a market panic collapse, as everyone was 
duped into thinking that the British lost. Only after the prices reached 
fire-sale levels did Rothschild step in and buy. Within hours, news of the 
British victory reached the rest of the market, and prices skyrocketed. It's 
become a classic case in investment brokers' circles.  (The New York Times, in 
its April 1, 1915 edition, reported that Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild had 
attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book written by Ignatious Balla
 
entitled The Romance of the Rothschilds on the grounds that the Waterloo story 
about his grandfather was untrue and libelous. The court ruled that the story 
was true, dismissed the suit, and ordered Rothschild to pay all court costs.)

Muscling of Markets

Bruck goes on to quote one source as saying, in their view: "Soros's remarkable
 
career in the financial markets has not sated his 'long quest for legitimacy 
.... because George knows that in the financial world many will say that his 
success is due more to his aggressive positioning and muscling of markets than 
to any thoughtful insights.' "

Unusual Sources of  Information for Market Decisions

Soros's use of access to intelligence information is  described by a former 
associate in a case involving Quantum's portfolio of Japanese stocks. "I used 
to trade it at home, until about 2 A.M.," the associate said. "One night, at 
midnight, George called me and said, 'Sell the Japanese portfolio.'  I said, 
'There are only two hours of trading left --sell the whole portfolio?' 'The 
whole portfolio.' "This person went on to say that Soros is a great 
"intelligence officer" since he was in Washington, D.C. when he called him at 
midnight, and in the next two days the United States government put 
restrictions on trading with Japan.  

The author leaves it up to the reader to guess how Soros obtained the 
information in advance. However, after watching on TV an episode showing how 
'Dirty Dick' Morris,  Bill Clinton's campaign adviser, shared a copy of 
Hillary's speech  with a high-priced prostitute in advance of Hillary's 
delivery, anything is possible in the city of the Watergate burglary. In any 
case, the author does not prove it was illegally obtained information. However,
 
there  is an implication that pre-released information about a major government
 
policy shift of this nature might be  "leaked information" at the least.

Contacts of Foreign Ministers and Central Bankers

The article further describes how Soros has developed a worldwide network of 
contacts, including a host of foreign ministers and central bankers. "Soros 
further expanded his access to information by farming out money, to be handled 
by promising fund managers all over the world, who then became his sources. And
 
he made the discovery of 'emerging markets' a staple of his investing before 
the term had ever been coined. Upon learning from his sources that liberalizing
 
measures to open a country to foreign investment were being planned, Soros 
would set up a joint venture with a native there which could trade in the local
 
market; when the market opened, his investments would increase dramatically in 
value."

Open Society Foundations

Soros started opening his "open society" foundations in 1984 in Hungary, 
followed by China in 1986, the Soviet Union in 1987, and Poland in 1988.  Bruck
 
goes on to say, "While it was true that the foundations' directors had a great 
deal of latitude and that each foundation had its own board of directors, 
ultimate control resided with Soros. (For many years, the board of the Open 
Society Fund ---an umbrella organization ---consisted only of Soros, his wife, 
and Bill Zabel.) He was a benevolent autocrat, however, and he stuck to his 
resolution to maintain a low profile. It was not really feasible to do 
otherwise. As Soros pointed out to me, the foundations were subversive, and 
their real motivation had to be 'under wraps'  ---particularly since the 
different countries were in different stages of political evolution. Recalling 
that an article that appeared about him in the late eighties referred to him as
 
an 'anti--Communist,' Soros said, 'It was  highly embarrassing and damaging to 
me, because I had a foundation in China, where I said I was a supporter of the 
Open Door policy. 'I'm not an  anti-Communist,'  I said to them. So you would 
have to say different things in different countries.'    As a result, he went 
on, 'all communications had to be private  ----I would talk to the government 
officials, and say one thing in one country, and another thing in another 
country!'  He laughed heartily."  I wonder which line he has been using  in 
Ukraine since he started his foundation there in 1990?  Between 1990 and 1992, 
he established sixteen new foundations in the formerly Communist countries.

CFR Members See Role For Soros, Their Fellow CFR Member

"To Soros fans like Strobe Talbott; Leslie Gelb, the president of the Council 
on Foreign Relations; and Mark Malloch Brown, the head of public affairs at the
 
World Bank, Soros is the trailblazer they hope other businesspeople will 
follow, moving to fill the vacuum left by an over-extended and inadequate 
government," writes Bruck. 

The author does not mention that Strobe Talbott is also a member of the Council
 
on Foreign Affairs (CFR). Leslie H. Gelb has been a CFR member since 1973. 
Other members of CFR who also belong to the American-Ukrainian Advisory 
Committee (AUAC), include Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. 
Carlucci, Richard R. Burt and John R. Galvin.  And yes, George Soros is also a 
member of the CFR. Thus, six of the seven current  American-Ukrainian Advisory 
Committee members are also CFR members. Dwayne O. Andreas, also a CFR member, 
is a past advisor of the AUAC. What a coincidence! Perhaps, the 
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee should be called the CFR-Ukraine Advisory
 
Committee, even though it is sponsored by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies.

Also, not mentioned in the article is that George Soros, Henry A. Kissinger and
 
Dwayne O. Andreas also belong to the secretive  "Bildebergers." 

And, Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dwayne O. Andreas and Frank C. 
Carlucci are also members of the Trilateral Commission, founded by Brzezinski 
and David Rockefeller. (The Rockefellers donated the CFR headquarters 
building.)

I find it curious how such a small and closely linked group of advisers, from 
such a private organization such as the CFR,  plays such an important, if not 
critical, role as the intermediary between the two sovereign countries of 
Ukraine and United States in shaping their domestic and foreign policies. Is 
the CFR really looking after the best  interests of Ukraine, or is it promoting
 
its own agenda for Ukraine?  Are the two necessarily the same?  What is the 
history of the CFR? (More posts on these questions will be forthcoming).

Soros's Influence on the Government of Ukraine

Bruck states that: "Of all the countries where Soros has placed his 
philanthropic bets since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ukraine seems on the 
verge of producing the greatest payoff. There, more than anywhere else, Soros 
has been able to exert influence  at the highest levels of the government to 
see his ideas implemented. Indeed, if President Leonid Kuchma succeeds in 
bringing about the economic reforms he has recently promised, that over-all 
scenario will have been scripted, to a notable degree, by Soros."

Soros's Connections in Ukraine

Two of the early key associates in Soros's endeavour in Ukraine, were the 
economist Bohdan Hawrylyshyn and historian Bohdan Krawchenko. Bruck goes on to 
say that:  "Contrasting the Soros foundation in Ukraine with its counterparts 
in other countries, Krawchenko told me,  'There is no other place where the 
Soros foundation is so plugged in at the top. We were here when there was 
nothing .... The deputy minister of finance sat with George and me in a 
basement almost four years ago and we tried to figure out what to do about 
monetary reform.'  That deputy minister of finance, Olech Havrylyshyn (a nephew
 
of Bohdan), was on the payroll of the Soros foundation  ---as was the deputy 
governor of the National Bank (George Yurchyshyn, a Ukrainian-American who had 
previously been a vice-president at the Bank of Boston)."  I suppose in other 
countries that may have been considered to be a conflict of interest. In 1993, 
Soros appointed Bohdan Budzan, as the new executive director of his foundation.
 
Budzan had been a bureaucrat in the Communist regime.

Soros's Connection to Kuchma and  Election Campaigns

In 1994 when Leonid Kuchma was a Presidential candidate, he visited Soros in 
the United States. Bruck goes on to say that: "Kuchma was rated an outsider in 
a large field of candidates, but in early July he won an upset victory. Soros 
says that he had nothing to do with it. However, Evelyn Herfkens, of the World 
Bank, says, 'The Bank cannot support election campaigns of reformers; in the 
Ukraine, Soros did.'  There was, at the least, a massive effort to level the 
playing field:  the April 1994, bulletin of the Soros foundation lists twelve 
grants, in the areas of civil society, education, economics, and mass media, 
eleven of them for amounts ranging from five thousand dollars to thirty-one 
thousand eight hundred dollars, with most in the lower range. But the twelfth 
--to support independent television stations' coverage of the Ukrainian 
elections --was for $363,100, an extraordinary infusion of capital in Ukraine, 
and one that would be spent in a three-month period."  

Bruck also claims that Soros was the key factor in enabling Kuchma to get a 
nearly four billion dollar IMF loan for Ukraine, which was contingent on 
instituting IMF economic reforms. This he did through Anders Aslund (who by the
 
way also attends "Bildeberger" meetings) of the Carnegie Institute.  
Coincidently, "The day the agreement was announced, Soros was attending a 
conference in Kiev sponsored by the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee, a 
group organized by Zbigniew Brzezinski; Henry Kissinger was there as well."

Soros's Influence in Cabinet and Parliament of Ukraine

Bruck gives some examples of Soros's influence:  "Roman Shpek, the Minister of 
the Economy, who is leading the reforms, is a graduate of Soros's Management 
Training Institute. The Institute for Public Administration, which Krawchenko 
heads, has also produced significant players; as Krawchenko told me, 'of the 
four hundred or so in the Cabinet apparatus, about thirty have been through our
 
program --and they are quite an activist group.' " This type of inculcation is 
reminescent  of the effect that the Mont Pelerin Society had on the Russian 
reformists ex-Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar and current Head of Presidential 
Staff,  Anatoly Chubais as described in a previous post, "IRI's friends in 
Russia: the anti-utopia in power" by EIR.

In her other example one can see how Soros exerts his influence to meet his 
objectives.  Bruck says:  "Soros's Center for Privatization and Private 
Investments has taken many members of Parliament on trips abroad, to see 
economic reforms at work in formerly Communist countries; most recently, a 
group of very conservative members went to Prague  --shortly before the 
confirmation vote on the proposed head of the State Property Fund (in charge of
 
privatization), Yuri Yehanurov, a reformer favored by Soros and his allies. At 
least half the people in the delegation changed their minds, according to 
Krawchenko, and Yehanurov was confirmed. And during Soros's late-September 
visit a task force --including people from the World Bank, the Ukrainian 
government, and the Soros foundation ---was created to wage a media campaign 
for the reforms. One person who attended this task-force meeting said that 
Soros's message was 'Work together! Move! Economic education is the thing to do
 
until you hear from me again!' "

A third example provided by Bruck is the following:  "That he, a foreigner, has
 
been able to stride so purposefully across the political landscape of this 
country [Ukraine] is probably due to a number of factors, among them his having
 
arrived so early in its independence, and stayed; his partnership with 
Hawrylyshyn, who is widely admired, and trusted for his patriotism; and the 
good will generated by the many programs that the foundation supports in the 
areas of education, culture, and health (as well as its more politically 
charged agendas). Still, it was not until his  man became President that Soros 
was able to begin effectively mobilizing for the kind of change that he and 
others in the West had long envisioned. Dr. Viktor Pynzenyk, the Deputy Prime 
Minister, told me, regarding the team of foreign advisers led by Anders Aslund,
 
'We know very well what needs to be done. But Kuchma respects Soros, and Kuchma
 
needs to be convinced by memos prepared by Soros.' "

Soros himself said, "If this isn't meddling in the affairs of a foreign nation,
 
I don't know what is!", when commenting on his interventionalist role in 
Ukraine. 

Soros's Moscow Foundation Plaqued By Corruption

Bruck describes the corruption in Soros's Moscow foundation. "In the most 
recent imbroglio at the Moscow foundation, last spring, it emerged that 
employees had lent foundation monies to a car dealership in exchange for more 
than sixty cars, several of which the employees took for their own; computers 
and other goods that were supposed to be distributed and had been stockpiled in
 
a warehouse; and roughly fourteen million dollars, which was supposed to have 
been spent on programs, instead had been deposited in banks of such poor 
reputation that those deposits raised the question, at least, of kickbacks."

Questioning the Independence of the Soros Foundations

Bruck says,  "The critical question, this person [a longtime associate of 
Soros] said, is 'what it means to be an independent foundation when our work 
depends so much on whether George sleeps or doesn't sleep with the President of
 
a country.'  Because Soros 'sleeps with Gligorov, my colleagues in Skopje have 
a completely different working style than Sonja Licht's in Belgrade.'  Licht is
 
the president of the board of the Belgrade foundation, which is repeatedly 
threatened with being closed down by the government of Slobodan Milosevic. By 
contrast, this person said, the Macedonian foundation is widely reputed within 
the foundation network to receive special treatment, 'because it is really a 
government office.' "

Buying the Government

Bruck goes on to quote a Soros associate on the Albanian foundation, " 'You can
 
make a very clean Albanian institution, with Albanian people ... avoid 
corruption, and have it support civil society. And you will have a nice, clean 
institution, but nothing moves. Or, you make believe you are the same, and you 
corrupt everybody. You get things moving, schools will be rebuilt, you will 
have curriculum reform.' Corruption, this person said, would likely include 
everything from the most blatant (kickbacks from those who are given a deal) to
 
the somewhat more subtle (demands for perks, such as trips to the West, from 
government officials whose approval is required for the reforms). 'For me, it 
is very difficult to run foundations with links to the government. But maybe I 
am too conservative and slow, still following old recipes. He'  --Soros-- 
'feels it's a way of buying the government.' "


-- end of Part 1 ---  continued in Part 2


Stefan Lemieszewski

In article >,  > wrote:
>Subject: 
>              A T E N T I E U N G A R I A !
>        Date: 
>              3 Nov 1996 22:04:01 -0500
>       From: 
>               (MMarin3340)
>Organization: 
>              America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
> Newsgroups: 
>              soc.culture.romanian
>
>
>Ce cauta frati romani comentarii unguresti de doi bani ,
>intre comentariile si discutiile ROMANILOR !
>Fac otrava  in tara , fac otrava si aici ,  pina la urma o sa moara
>otraviti!
>
>
>I G N O R A T I I  !
>
>
>A C E L A S I.

Now how about giving the translation?  Otherwise what's the point
posting Romanian text on a Hungarian news group?

Joe

Wally Keeler > wrote:
>Nevertheless, you are irreleve/ant -- PLUNK!

Can't figure it out huh? No wonder ....

---  continued from Part 1  ---

Formation of OMRI

In the following, Bruck describes the formation of OMRI, whose posts we now see
 
on the Internet, and includes some comments by its employees. Soros apparently 
got seriously interested in OMRI when he realized its potential for influencing
 
government officials and academics. Bruck states,  "The broadcast stations of 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty continue to be funded by the United States 
government, but in early 1994 Soros entered a joint venture to acquire the 
organization's research institute and, under a fifty-year lease, its archives. 
[almost seems like a privatization initiative]  Both operations are now 
subsumed under a new entity, the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI). Based in
 
Praque, it has a seven-member board: Soros and two others from his staff; two 
people from the Board for International Broadcasting (the government agency 
that oversees Radio Free Europe); and two 'independents' (one chosen by Soros 
and one by the B.I.B.). It should be noted that if the independents were to 
side with their selectors, the lineup would, predictably, be 4-3, Soros."

As for employee comments, Bruck says, "When Soros's deal with Radio Free Europe
 
was announced to dozens of foundation employees, at a meeting in Budapest in 
the spring of 1994, many were dismayed. 'What we essentially said was "You do 
what you want, but don't involve us!" ' one employee recalled. Even in 
countries where the governments are friendly, the foundations have to contend 
with opposition parties decrying Soros as a greedy capitalist bent on expanding
 
his empire --and, employees point out, his control of a vast information 
network would lend credence to that image. Several told me they find it 
particularly ironic that they should have spent most of their lives under 
Communist regimes and have finally emerged as open-society partisans --only to 
be confronted with such a directive. 'If this media program has to distribute 
someone else's truth, it will be a disaster,' one employee commented."

Soros Renouncing Soros Policies

Bruck comments that, "At the Budapest meeting, Soros also said that he was 
renouncing his much trumpeted policy of not investing in countries where he had
 
foundations. In the past, he had said that he was abstaining from such 
investments because of the inherent conflict of interest; as a large-scale 
philanthropist and, in some places, an adviser to the government, he would be 
in a position to exploit a host of opportunities [remember his Japanese 
portfolio decision]. Now, in Budapest, he explained that these countries needed
 
foreign investment, and that other investors would follow his lead. Many in the
 
audience felt that this sudden reversal would, like the Radio Free Europe deal,
 
make their tasks on the ground more difficult; when critics charged that 
Soros's philanthropy was merely a smoke screen for empire-building, there had 
been an effective rebuttal. Disapproval was not unanimous, however; Budzan, of 
the Ukrainian foundation, for one, applauded Soros's decision, saying he hoped 
that Soros would invest in Ukraine. (Soros recently decided to make Ukraine an 
exception and not to invest there, because of the intensity of his high-level 
involvement.)"      

Attempt to Control Two-Thirds of the Retail Banking Market in Hungary 

It appears that Soros has plans for some of his foundations that are quite 
unusual. For example, Bruck points out that "He recently sought to acquire a 
major stake in the largest retail bank in Hungary, on behalf of his foundation 
and university there, but negotiations were halted, partly because of public 
protest over his proposition: an initial investment of fifty million dollars 
(scaling up to two hundred million), which would have made indomitable a bank 
that already controls two-thirds of the retail market. ('It is the market,'  
the analyst Gyorgy Jaksity commented.)"

Money Buys Power and Influence

Bruck comments that many of Soros's philanthropic donations are strategic with 
strings attached. She says, "Soros has for many years been a major contributor 
to Helsinki Watch; and that, too, has been strategic, for by directing his 
monies toward designated projects he has been able to influence which 
situations receive attention (and, perhaps, which ones do not). According to 
one person, he recently made a long-term commitment to the Council on Foreign 
Relations [recall its members Talbott, Gelb, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Carlucci, 
Burt, Galvin, Andreas, and Soros] --under the condition, however, that he be an
 
anonymous donor. With the council, he co-sponsored a conference on NATO, held 
at the C.E.U. in Budapest in November of 1993, and delivered a paper he had 
written. Commenting on Soros's talk, one person told me, 'A lot of people were 
sitting there shaking their heads --but he was paying the bills.' "

Soros's Anti-Semitism

Bruck writes, "The Moscow foundation is being re-constituted, with a new board 
 and new executives. The search for board members has been launched in typical 
Soros fashion: twenty or so prospective candidates were taken on a quick tour, 
by chartered plane, of Soros foundations in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and 
Ukraine; they were in Kiev and Budapest during Soros's visits there, in 
September. Although nearly all the candidates appeared to be in their fifties 
and sixties, one Soros associate told me that it was like shepherding a group 
of schoolchildren; they seemed more interested in the next snack period than in
 
the endless round of meetings arranged for them. A Russian candidate told me at
 
the end of the trip, 'There was too much information to absorb. But travelling 
around in our own plane -- now, that was interesting!' "

Bruck continues, "I told Soros that this did not seem like money well spent. He
 
responded, rather sharply, 'Look, how do you mobilize people? You ask for 
recommendations, and you look at them ... So I asked for recommendations, and I
 
invited people, took them on the trip, and it turned out that they were all too
 
old and too Jewish! '  He chuckled. 'And not acceptable. I mean, you can't be 
that Jewish in Russia. So I told them, 'You can't have more than one-third Jews
 
on the board.'  "   Thus, it appears that Soros disqualified two-thirds of the 
prospective board members, simply because they were Jewish.

Open Society

In her article, Connie Bruck does not review Soros's "open-society" philosophy 
which is his guiding principles for his philanthropic investments. The term 
sounds benign and has a very positive, self-evident connotation, especially 
when contrasted with the communist "closed-societies"  of the former Soviet 
Union. But what is the vision of George Soros's "open-society" for these 
countries?  Perhaps his book "Soros on Soros" (ISBN 0-471-12014-6, 1995)  may 
shed some light;  in particular his section titled Brave New World (p.282-3) 
below. It raises serious questions as to the kind of society Soros envisions 
for Ukraine and other FSU countries where he is advising and investing. Note 
the decline in personal relationships, euthanasia, and the practicality of 
brainwashing as options  of this "open society."

Stefan Lemieszewski
__________________________________________________________
-from Soros on Soros   -

Brave New World

Let me try to carry the concept of an open society to its logical conclusions 
and describe what a perfectly changeable society would look like. Alternatives 
would be available in all aspects of existence: in personal relations, opinions
 
and ideas, productive processes and materials, social and economic 
organization, and so on. In these circumstances, the individual would occupy a 
paramount position. Members of an organic society possess no independence at 
all; in a less than perfectly changeable society, established values and 
relationships still circumscribe people's behaviour; but in a perfectly open 
society none of the existing ties are final, and people's relation to nation, 
family, and their fellows depends entirely on their own decisions. Looking at 
the reverse side of the coin, this means that the permanence of social 
relationships has disappeared; the organic structure of society has 
disintegrated to the point where its atoms, the individuals, float around 
without any roots.

How the individual chooses among the alternatives available to him or her is 
the subject mater of economics. Economic analysis therefore provides a 
convenient starting point. All that is necessary is to extend it. In a world in
 
which every action is a matter of choice, economic behaviour characterizes all 
fields of activity. That does not necessarily mean that people pay more 
attention  to the possession of goods than to spiritual, artistic, or moral 
values, but merely that all values can be reduced to monetary terms. This 
renders the principles of the market mechanism relevant to such far-ranging 
areas as art, politics, social life, sex, and religion. Not everything that has
 
value is subject to buying and selling, because there are some values that are 
purely personal and therefore cannot be exchanged (e.g., maternal love), others
 
that lose their value in the process of exchange (e.g., reputation), and still 
others that it would be physically impossible or illegal to trade (e.g., the 
weather or political appointments). Still, in a perfectly changeable society 
the scope of the market mechanism would be extended to its utmost limit. Even 
where the operation of market forces is regulated by legislation, legislation 
itself would be the result of a process of haggling akin to economic behaviour.

Choices arise that would not even have been imagined in an earlier age. 
Euthanasia, genetic engineering, and brainwashing become practical 
possibilities. The most complex human functions, such as thinking, may be 
broken down into their elements and artificially reproduced. Everything appears
 
possible until it has been proved impossible.

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of a perfectly changeable society is 
the decline in personal relationships. What makes a relationship personal is 
that it is tied to a specific person. Friends, neighbors, husbands and wives 
would become, if not interchangeable, at least readily replaceable by only 
marginally inferior (or superior) substitutes; they would be subject to choice 
under competitive conditions. Parents and children would presumably remain 
fixed, but the ties that connect them may become less influential. Personal 
contact may altogether decline in importance as more efficient means of 
communication reduce the need for physical presence.

The picture that emerges is less than pleasing. As an accomplished fact, open 
society may prove to be far less desirable than it seems to those who regard it
 
as an ideal.

-end of quote --

In article >, A.L.Redey > wrote:
>> Ha mar itt tartunk, melyik egyuttes enekelt valami olyasmit, hogy:
>>
>> "En az idot nem sajnalom, csak elni szeretnek
>> Hagyjatok elni!"
>
>Meteorologia. Ja nem, Prognozis. Voros Istvan (ha jol emlexem a nevere)
>(volt) egyuttese.
>
>kAos

Tenyleg, Prognozis. Mar nem letezik?

Gabor

In article >,
Gyorgy Kovacs > wrote:
>Wally Keeler > wrote:
>>
>>SENTENCE 2: "We learned about age that in history class!"
>>            Simply incomprehensible!
>
>Well if you hadn't skipped your English 101 classes, you would have been
>able to unjumble the puzzle, by just reversing the order of the 4th and 5th
>words. Can you see how easy it is, if you think?

But what can ya expect from a pseudo poet who writes poo-etry (creative 
wordplay!). Willy contributes nada to society, he just takes up space.

Gabor

Nevertheless, you are irreleve/ant -- PLUNK!

Gyorgy Kovacs ) writes:
> Wally Keeler > wrote:
>>
>>You are irrelevent -- PLUNK!
>          ^^^^^^^^^^
>                    \That's irrelevant -- PUNK!
>>
>>Gabor Barsai ) writes:
>>> Oh, willy. Like you never made a mistake in your life!
> 
> Over and over again .............

-Surensoy,E. wrote:
> 
>         Also of course all what you are saying has nothing to do with the
>         point I am making:
> 
>         The point I am making is this:
> 
>           No Turk was ever given any privilge or oportunity by Ottoman as
>           "timar" or any position in Ottoman power hierarchi; on the contrary
,
>           all Turks were deliberately kept by the Ottoman sytsem of oppressio
n,
>           which was composed of all devshirmes who were former Christian
>           converts of Greek, Armenian, and other Eastern European origins,

This is an interesting thesis.  The only thing absolutely wrong with your 
thesis, which should be stated in terms of predominance of leadership not 
being Turkic, not as an absolute, is your statement about Albanian being 
the "official" diplomatic language.  It seems to me that what few of 
these documents I have seen (Osmanli documents)are in Osmanliji Turkish 
which is in Arabic script and the only thing different about that Turkish 
is the use of a lot of polite, formal Arabic phraseology.  I haven't seen 
these Albanian documents, but then I haven't looked much at late Ottoman 
anyway.
In the early Ottoman, end of beylik period, there are quite a number of 
writings in Farsi, especially for poetry, as this was fashionable (see 
Kadi Burhan ad Din of Sivas, my personal Mongol favorite  who wrote this 
sort of poetry)

Here again, just as when you were speaking of the German Reformation, the 
preliminary work necessary to you thesis has not been done.  I keep 
thinking of various Byzantine and Slavic wives of various of the earlier 
Ottomans, trying to remember where to look up the wives of the 
Karamanoglu, per one example, and thinking that looking at the Selcuk 
administration period up to and including Murad I might show some trends 
for you.  There you can see the pattern developing.

But I am also thinking at the same time that this earlier period was a 
great period of assimilationl as you yourself state, and that even during 
this period of assimilation, there were a great many kinds of people 
involved.  In the example of Kadi Burhan ad Din that I mention above, he 
was Mongol, not Turk, and there were in that particular area, various 
kinds of Turkic people, Greeks, Rum of whatever ilk calling themselves 
Roman, Armenians, Kurds, etc. etc.  It is not like htere is this simple 
ethnographic slate upon which you could base your thesis, Turk versus 
non-Turk, for what you are calling the Turks were very multiethnic 
themselves way before your chosen 16th century period.  If you look at 
your thesis in this sense, you will see that it is somewhat absurd to be 
worrying about the maltreatment of a people whose "Turkness" was not very 
Turkish.  Not in the early Ottman period, at least. 


 There seems to be a transition from a confederation of fairly distinct 
clans in the early Selcuk period.  And if you look at the early 
Turkish, then Selcuk period in Iran you see some of the same trends.  
There exists, for example, a large difference between the Selcuks and the 
Buyids, for example in that earlier period and this is the period just at 
the beginning of the establishment of Selcuk rule in Anatolia.  BUt you 
also see, when looking at the artisan and architetural record that the 
Buyids borrowed from the Selcuks and only refined their artistic 
conventions, some of which were based on earlier, non-Islamic Persian 
work.

But here again I am saying that if you are looking at statements or 
theses of this sort, it is better to do a thorough study of the earlier 
periods upon which these institutions are based than to assume no 
transition to the later period.


 as
>           the most ignorant and powerless socially, economically and every
>           other way.
> 
> )Galina Schneider.
> )
> )Of course, this has nothing to do with the German Reformation
> 
> In article ),  ) wrote:
> )-Surensoy,E. wrote:
> ))
> )) In article ),  ) wrote:
> )) )-Surensoy,E. wrote:
> )) ))
> )) ))         No Turk was ever given any privilge or oportunity by Ottoman as
> )) ))         "timar" or any position in Ottoman power hierarchi; on the cont
rary,
> )) ))         all Turks 

I would theoretize that there was little in the way of the concept "Turk" 
by three centuries before the period under discussion.  In fact, I would 
say that the ghazi culture of the Ottomans was specifically and 
intentionally non-nationalistic. In the rise of Ottoman culture in 
Anatolia the beyliks were battling one another.  Here I think you will 
find your treasure trove of detail supporting (somewhat) your thesis in 
that the suppression of these beyliks incvolved developing a particular 
sort of administrative pattern....  Really, it is somewhat tiresome 
constructing this line of thought as I feel you ought be doing it and 
without doing it, you will be unable to see the fallacies in your 
simplistic theses.




were deliberately kept by the Ottoman sytsem of oppression,
> )) ))         which was composed of all devshirmes who were former Christian 
converts
> )) ))         of Greek, Armenian, and other Eastern European origins, as the 
most
> )) ))         ignorant and powerless socially, economically and every other w
ay.
> )) ))Note, quick typing had wrong date here:
> )
> )called by Suleiman to reconstruct the imperial fleet:  1534, and he was
> )titled by Suleiman Kaptan- [Kapudan] -Pasa.
> )
> )died:  1546.
> )
> )It should be noted that Barbaros was not the only person in the position
> )he was given by Suleiman.  The position was established during Mehmed II
> )and was held by numerous individuals.  During Suleiman, the captainships,
> )if you would call them that, were split into three, corresponding to the
> )three sea campaigns initiated by Suleiman.
> )
> )Galina Schneider.
> )
> )Of course, this has nothing to do with the German Reformation
> )

I really think you especially have to work on the Albanian theories you 
have here.


Galina Schneider

I did not say "Albanian being the "official" diplomatic language"
	of Ottoman Empire; I said Armenian was the Ottoman diplomatic
	language.


In article >,  > wrote:
)-Surensoy,E. wrote:
)) 
))         Also of course all what you are saying has nothing to do with the
))         point I am making:
)) 
))         The point I am making is this:
)) 
))           No Turk was ever given any privilge or oportunity by Ottoman as
))           "timar" or any position in Ottoman power hierarchi; on the contrar
y,
))           all Turks were deliberately kept by the Ottoman sytsem of oppressi
on,
))           which was composed of all devshirmes who were former Christian
))           converts of Greek, Armenian, and other Eastern European origins,
)
)This is an interesting thesis.  The only thing absolutely wrong with your 
)thesis, which should be stated in terms of predominance of leadership not 
)being Turkic, not as an absolute, is your statement about Albanian being 
)the "official" diplomatic language.  It seems to me that what few of 
)these documents I have seen (Osmanli documents)are in Osmanliji Turkish 
)which is in Arabic script and the only thing different about that Turkish 
)is the use of a lot of polite, formal Arabic phraseology.  I haven't seen 
)these Albanian documents, but then I haven't looked much at late Ottoman 
)anyway.
)In the early Ottoman, end of beylik period, there are quite a number of 
)writings in Farsi, especially for poetry, as this was fashionable (see 
)Kadi Burhan ad Din of Sivas, my personal Mongol favorite  who wrote this 
)sort of poetry)
)
)Here again, just as when you were speaking of the German Reformation, the 
)preliminary work necessary to you thesis has not been done.  I keep 
)thinking of various Byzantine and Slavic wives of various of the earlier 
)Ottomans, trying to remember where to look up the wives of the 
)Karamanoglu, per one example, and thinking that looking at the Selcuk 
)administration period up to and including Murad I might show some trends 
)for you.  There you can see the pattern developing.
)
)But I am also thinking at the same time that this earlier period was a 
)great period of assimilationl as you yourself state, and that even during 
)this period of assimilation, there were a great many kinds of people 
)involved.  In the example of Kadi Burhan ad Din that I mention above, he 
)was Mongol, not Turk, and there were in that particular area, various 
)kinds of Turkic people, Greeks, Rum of whatever ilk calling themselves 
)Roman, Armenians, Kurds, etc. etc.  It is not like htere is this simple 
)ethnographic slate upon which you could base your thesis, Turk versus 
)non-Turk, for what you are calling the Turks were very multiethnic 
)themselves way before your chosen 16th century period.  If you look at 
)your thesis in this sense, you will see that it is somewhat absurd to be 
)worrying about the maltreatment of a people whose "Turkness" was not very 
)Turkish.  Not in the early Ottman period, at least. 
)
)
) There seems to be a transition from a confederation of fairly distinct 
)clans in the early Selcuk period.  And if you look at the early 
)Turkish, then Selcuk period in Iran you see some of the same trends.  
)There exists, for example, a large difference between the Selcuks and the 
)Buyids, for example in that earlier period and this is the period just at 
)the beginning of the establishment of Selcuk rule in Anatolia.  BUt you 
)also see, when looking at the artisan and architetural record that the 
)Buyids borrowed from the Selcuks and only refined their artistic 
)conventions, some of which were based on earlier, non-Islamic Persian 
)work.
)
)But here again I am saying that if you are looking at statements or 
)theses of this sort, it is better to do a thorough study of the earlier 
)periods upon which these institutions are based than to assume no 
)transition to the later period.
)
)
) as
))           the most ignorant and powerless socially, economically and every
))           other way.
)) 
)) )Galina Schneider.
)) )
)) )Of course, this has nothing to do with the German Reformation
)) 
)) In article ),  ) wrote:
)) )-Surensoy,E. wrote:
)) ))
)) )) In article ),  ) wrote:
)) )) )-Surensoy,E. wrote:
)) )) ))
)) )) ))         No Turk was ever given any privilge or oportunity by Ottoman a
s
)) )) ))         "timar" or any position in Ottoman power hierarchi; on the con
trary,
)) )) ))         all Turks 
)
)I would theoretize that there was little in the way of the concept "Turk" 
)by three centuries before the period under discussion.  In fact, I would 
)say that the ghazi culture of the Ottomans was specifically and 
)intentionally non-nationalistic. In the rise of Ottoman culture in 
)Anatolia the beyliks were battling one another.  Here I think you will 
)find your treasure trove of detail supporting (somewhat) your thesis in 
)that the suppression of these beyliks incvolved developing a particular 
)sort of administrative pattern....  Really, it is somewhat tiresome 
)constructing this line of thought as I feel you ought be doing it and 
)without doing it, you will be unable to see the fallacies in your 
)simplistic theses.
)
)
)
)
)were deliberately kept by the Ottoman sytsem of oppression,
)) )) ))         which was composed of all devshirmes who were former Christian
 converts
)) )) ))         of Greek, Armenian, and other Eastern European origins, as the
 most
)) )) ))         ignorant and powerless socially, economically and every other 
way.
)) )) ))Note, quick typing had wrong date here:
)) )
)) )called by Suleiman to reconstruct the imperial fleet:  1534, and he was
)) )titled by Suleiman Kaptan- [Kapudan] -Pasa.
)) )
)) )died:  1546.
)) )
)) )It should be noted that Barbaros was not the only person in the position
)) )he was given by Suleiman.  The position was established during Mehmed II
)) )and was held by numerous individuals.  During Suleiman, the captainships,
)) )if you would call them that, were split into three, corresponding to the
)) )three sea campaigns initiated by Suleiman.
)) )
)) )Galina Schneider.
)) )
)) )Of course, this has nothing to do with the German Reformation
)) )
)
)I really think you especially have to work on the Albanian theories you 
)have here.
)
)
)Galina Schneider
)

PLUNK!

In article >, 
 says...
>Wally Keeler > wrote:
>Goober wrote:
>>SENTENCE 2: "We learned about age that in history class!"
>>            Simply incomprehensible!
>
>Well if you hadn't skipped your English 101 classes, you would have been
>able to unjumble the puzzle, by just reversing the order of the 4th and 5th
>words. Can you see how easy it is, if you think?

In article >,
 > wrote:
| Sulyosan tevednek akik azt hiszik, hogy Partizanbacsi
| a szonyeg ala kivanja tomkodni 1956-ot.
| 
| Csupan a Forradalmat es Szabadsagharcot bagatellizalja,
| amugy nagyon is hiperaktiv, peldaul a gyilkosok
| kitunteteseben.
| 

Potyka bacsira gondolsz?

Istvan

In article >,
Gyorgy Kovacs > wrote:
| In article >,  > wrote
:
| >
| >I keep thinking what the equivalent Hungarian word would be for the
| >American slang "cool", but can't think of any.  I'm sure the literal
| >translation (hu"vo~s) isn't it.  Anybody?
| >
| >Joe
| 
| Several depending what you use it for:
| klassz, szuper, meno", nyero", franko', baro', and several x-rated ones. Ther
e 
| are probably much more. Meno" seems to be closest.
| GK


You guys are all old ;)! Meno" is not a eighties-nineties word like
cool is kiraly, tok jo are much more in then what most
people proposed. 

Istvan

Gabor Barsai > wrote:
>>Wally Keeler > wrote:
>>>            Simply incomprehensible!
>>
>>Well if you hadn't skipped your English 101 classes, you would have been
>>able to unjumble the puzzle, by just reversing the order of the 4th and 5th
>>words. Can you see how easy it is, if you think?
>But what can ya expect from a pseudo poet who writes poo-etry (creative
>wordplay!). Willy contributes nada to society, he just takes up space.
>Gabor

C'mon, Gabor, I'm trying to educate this poor lost lamb! If we give him a 
decade he might graduate to kindergarten! Besides he takes up much less space
lately with his greatly reduced vocabulary, which consists of two words:
irrelevent (wrong spelling) and PLUNK!
GK