On modern social liberal elites

[John V]

Champagne socialists
Liberals are found in abundance in the media, the professions, the arts, and music. They entertain, they inform, they organize and appropriate the profit made. Al Gore made his fortune by telling the world about global warming/climate change. Oprah Winfrey entertains millions and Obama is estimated to be worth $12.2m, a successful achievement for a former political activist. Soros, Madoff . . . none of these people produced anything that benefits society, but are super rich liberals. The Liberal elite are parasitic in nature and it’s why they remain largely conspicuous from strong wealth producing nations. The west, with a collapsing economy, human rights and an emphasis on diversity and equality is an ideal breeding ground for parasites.

How is it then that an ideology that promotes sharing and equality produces government leaders of the liberal movement who are themselves super rich? Why are liberals found in affluent areas and not in ghettos? Why are some of the richest people in America, Buffett, Gates, Winfrey, liberals?

Capitalist wealth
Capitalists do things; they manufacture and sell products. Liberals did not build cars and the food we consume wasn’t packaged and sold by a liberal professional class, or those on welfare. As manufacturing declines and businesses fail, the middle class shrinks. Wealth necessitates distribution by taxation, laws and regulations, which give the former capitalist illusion of prosperity, but is simply a redistribution of what already exists and not creation. Liberals create ideas and schemes and always, without exception, those which further the appropriation of those who produce.

Socialist wealth
Socialism shares similar values to communism, in the context that the State sees itself as above the individual as a distributor of private wealth. Gradually, it replaces the absolute monarchies of old, but becomes a similar entity above that of society as the same undisputable controlling force of monarchism, which it replaced. In a dependent society, a small collection of distributors eventually comes more important than those elected to represent them. Margaret Thatcher once made the observation, ‘‘The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.’’
The Liberal elite don’t create or produce; they move into areas of wealth creation and appropriate the existing wealth. It is why the more affluent areas attract liberals and why places like Silicon Valley and Florida are attractive to liberals and the urban ghettos are safely micro managed from a distance. The Wild West was not tamed by liberals and no Union ever built a factory, but the profits made attract a liberal parasitic class.

Success in any area of enterprise attracts liberals, who are voted in with promises of equal sharing and who then proceed to dismantle the success with taxation and laws and is why one never sees a rich socialist country, or one with a small government.

The New old Order
Eventually and entirely predictively, without wealth creation and the resulting high tax revenue needed to support socialism, economies start to collapse. Borrowing and printing money is no longer an option, interest rates start to climb, national debt can no longer be serviced and at this point, the socialist government starts to nationalize basic essentials (ACA), prepares the police for the possible backlash (militarization) and makes ready places for large-scale dissent (FEMA). The end game is what H. G. Wells termed Liberal fascism, otherwise known as progressivism, using cultural Marxism as a dumbing down tool to facilitate that change.
Progressivism is simply a revolution by the elite, disguised as equality, seconded by liberals and voted in by the masses.

Quotes on the elite
i.‘‘We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.’’
Jean-Claude Juncker, (2012), current President of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.

ii.‘‘Britons are too ignorant about Europe to vote in a referendum on the subject’’, a top Brussels official claimed last night. ‘‘Seventy per cent of the laws in this country are co-decided by the European Parliament.’’
Viviane Reding, (2014), vice-president of the European Commission.

iii.Baldwin, S, ‘Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American History’, The Western Centre for Journalism.

iv.‘‘The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.’’ (Thomas Sowell)

John V, 2015, ‘The Modern Social Liberal’, ‘Modern Social Liberal elites’, p5, in http://www.academia.edu/11730219/The...Social_Liberal

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Champagne socialists
Liberals are found in abundance in the media, the professions, the arts, and music. They entertain, they inform, they organize and appropriate the profit made. Al Gore made his fortune by telling the world about global warming/climate change. Oprah Winfrey entertains millions and Obama is estimated to be worth $12.2m, a successful achievement for a former political activist. Soros, Madoff . . . none of these people produced anything that benefits society, but are super rich liberals. The Liberal elite are parasitic in nature and it’s why they remain largely conspicuous from strong wealth producing nations. The west, with a collapsing economy, human rights and an emphasis on diversity and equality is an ideal breeding ground for parasites.

How is it then that an ideology that promotes sharing and equality produces government leaders of the liberal movement who are themselves super rich? Why are liberals found in affluent areas and not in ghettos? Why are some of the richest people in America, Buffett, Gates, Winfrey, liberals?

Capitalist wealth
Capitalists do things; they manufacture and sell products. Liberals did not build cars and the food we consume wasn’t packaged and sold by a liberal professional class, or those on welfare. As manufacturing declines and businesses fail, the middle class shrinks. Wealth necessitates distribution by taxation, laws and regulations, which give the former capitalist illusion of prosperity, but is simply a redistribution of what already exists and not creation. Liberals create ideas and schemes and always, without exception, those which further the appropriation of those who produce.

Socialist wealth
Socialism shares similar values to communism, in the context that the State sees itself as above the individual as a distributor of private wealth. Gradually, it replaces the absolute monarchies of old, but becomes a similar entity above that of society as the same undisputable controlling force of monarchism, which it replaced. In a dependent society, a small collection of distributors eventually comes more important than those elected to represent them. Margaret Thatcher once made the observation, ‘‘The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.’’
The Liberal elite don’t create or produce; they move into areas of wealth creation and appropriate the existing wealth. It is why the more affluent areas attract liberals and why places like Silicon Valley and Florida are attractive to liberals and the urban ghettos are safely micro managed from a distance. The Wild West was not tamed by liberals and no Union ever built a factory, but the profits made attract a liberal parasitic class.

Success in any area of enterprise attracts liberals, who are voted in with promises of equal sharing and who then proceed to dismantle the success with taxation and laws and is why one never sees a rich socialist country, or one with a small government.

The New old Order
Eventually and entirely predictively, without wealth creation and the resulting high tax revenue needed to support socialism, economies start to collapse. Borrowing and printing money is no longer an option, interest rates start to climb, national debt can no longer be serviced and at this point, the socialist government starts to nationalize basic essentials (ACA), prepares the police for the possible backlash (militarization) and makes ready places for large-scale dissent (FEMA). The end game is what H. G. Wells termed Liberal fascism, otherwise known as progressivism, using cultural Marxism as a dumbing down tool to facilitate that change.
Progressivism is simply a revolution by the elite, disguised as equality, seconded by liberals and voted in by the masses.

Quotes on the elite
i.‘‘We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.’’
Jean-Claude Juncker, (2012), current President of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.

ii.‘‘Britons are too ignorant about Europe to vote in a referendum on the subject’’, a top Brussels official claimed last night. ‘‘Seventy per cent of the laws in this country are co-decided by the European Parliament.’’
Viviane Reding, (2014), vice-president of the European Commission.

iii.Baldwin, S, ‘Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American History’, The Western Centre for Journalism.

iv.‘‘The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.’’ (Thomas Sowell)

John V, 2015, ‘The Modern Social Liberal’, ‘Modern Social Liberal elites’, p5, in http://www.academia.edu/11730219/The...Social_Liberal

You are off to a rip roaring start. I hope your blade is sharp and you are not squeamish at the sight of blood. For the path you are now own will one day likely lead to bloodshed, perhaps even your own.
No problem, Ive been racing on that path for over 20 years now, they have not managed to shut me up or kill me(at least not yet)...-Tyr

A man will fight, a coward will run and a fool will applaud both equally. The first for his defiance , the second for his brilliance in running.

My legs are bad, my hands will be busy firing and to hell with those that are in such a desperate need of lead poisoning... may they enjoy their speedy trip to their maker..
I fly my flag openly, as you can see ....-Tyr

[John V]

You are off to a rip roaring start. I hope your blade is sharp and you are not squeamish at the sight of blood. For the path you are now own will one day likely lead to bloodshed, perhaps even your own.
No problem, Ive been racing on that path for over 20 years now, they have not managed to shut me up or kill me(at least not yet)...-Tyr

A man will fight, a coward will run and a fool will applaud both equally. The first for his defiance , the second for his brilliance in running.

My legs are bad, my hands will be busy firing and to hell with those that are in such a desperate need of lead poisoning... may they enjoy their speedy trip to their maker..
I fly my flag openly, as you can see ....-Tyr

I’ve posted a lot because it’s my day off today and no doubt I’ll be slowing down, but I’m more than willing to debate, a one to one is also OK. What I won’t get involved in is half a dozen throwing insults, or baiting. I’ve never been to the U.S. but the reason it’s so obvious is that Obama is following the path of a European ideology. Gun control, civil unrest, State dependency, mass immigration . . . isn’t something that just happened, they’re by-products of his agenda. Europe is exactly the same, it’s a madhouse over there.
Yet I know what you’re saying and thank you for the advice.

[Perianne]

...What I won’t get involved in is half a dozen throwing insults, or baiting. ...

You won't find here what you found at our previous forum. We have some liberals here but they are generally well-behaved.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You won't find here what you found at our previous forum. We have some liberals here but they are generally well-behaved.

Only because they are beaten down here by conservatives that refuse to indulge them in their insanity and stupidity and we do not have an overly generous and slavish admin backing them here as they have at most other sites..
Tis why this is the best political site on the internet for conservatives and decent Americans IMHO..-Tyr

[John V]

Tis why this is the best political site on the internet for conservatives and decent Americans IMHO..-Tyr

And we Brits of course

[fj1200]

Champagne socialists
Liberals are found in abundance in the media, the professions, the arts, and music. They entertain, they inform, they organize and appropriate the profit made. Al Gore made his fortune by telling the world about global warming/climate change. Oprah Winfrey entertains millions and Obama is estimated to be worth $12.2m, a successful achievement for a former political activist. Soros, Madoff . . . none of these people produced anything that benefits society, but are super rich liberals. The Liberal elite are parasitic in nature and it’s why they remain largely conspicuous from strong wealth producing nations. The west, with a collapsing economy, human rights and an emphasis on diversity and equality is an ideal breeding ground for parasites.

How is it then that an ideology that promotes sharing and equality produces government leaders of the liberal movement who are themselves super rich? Why are liberals found in affluent areas and not in ghettos? Why are some of the richest people in America, Buffett, Gates, Winfrey, liberals?

Rich Liberals live in affluent areas because who would want to live in the ghetto? Nevertheless I think your fallacy is to toss out a few buzzword bad liberals and make the case for the larger population. The liberal elite do suck but that's because liberal belief in general sucks. But that case can be made without resorting to fallacies and references to a non-existent "collapsing" of the western economy. Gates and Buffet became billionaires because they created or backed products that were desired by millions of people. Oprah became a billionaire because she created a product, herself, that was watched by millions.

Capitalist wealth
Capitalists do things; they manufacture and sell products. Liberals did not build cars and the food we consume wasn’t packaged and sold by a liberal professional class, or those on welfare. As manufacturing declines and businesses fail, the middle class shrinks. Wealth necessitates distribution by taxation, laws and regulations, which give the former capitalist illusion of prosperity, but is simply a redistribution of what already exists and not creation. Liberals create ideas and schemes and always, without exception, those which further the appropriation of those who produce.

Liberals are not the opposite of capitalists. Liberals creating government schemes do not add to our national wealth but liberal capitalists surely have.

Socialist wealth
Socialism shares similar values to communism, in the context that the State sees itself as above the individual as a distributor of private wealth. Gradually, it replaces the absolute monarchies of old, but becomes a similar entity above that of society as the same undisputable controlling force of monarchism, which it replaced. In a dependent society, a small collection of distributors eventually comes more important than those elected to represent them. Margaret Thatcher once made the observation, ‘‘The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.’’
The Liberal elite don’t create or produce; they move into areas of wealth creation and appropriate the existing wealth. It is why the more affluent areas attract liberals and why places like Silicon Valley and Florida are attractive to liberals and the urban ghettos are safely micro managed from a distance. The Wild West was not tamed by liberals and no Union ever built a factory, but the profits made attract a liberal parasitic class.

Success in any area of enterprise attracts liberals, who are voted in with promises of equal sharing and who then proceed to dismantle the success with taxation and laws and is why one never sees a rich socialist country, or one with a small government.

Socialism and communism are by definition largely the same, Russia was Socialist by name. Are you referring to European "mixed" economies? There are plenty of wealthy mixed economy countries, Germany, Norway, etc. but I agree that there are no rich Socialist countries, Russia, North Korea, etc. Silicon Valley is attractive to many because of the positive externalities of many tech companies coming together. Florida is popular with any old person because it's warm. I can't think of anyone who really likes to live in the ghettos except maybe those who are called to help the less fortunate.

The New old Order
Eventually and entirely predictively, without wealth creation and the resulting high tax revenue needed to support socialism, economies start to collapse. Borrowing and printing money is no longer an option, interest rates start to climb, national debt can no longer be serviced and at this point, the socialist government starts to nationalize basic essentials (ACA), prepares the police for the possible backlash (militarization) and makes ready places for large-scale dissent (FEMA). The end game is what H. G. Wells termed Liberal fascism, otherwise known as progressivism, using cultural Marxism as a dumbing down tool to facilitate that change.
Progressivism is simply a revolution by the elite, disguised as equality, seconded by liberals and voted in by the masses.

There are?/were? many iterations of "progressivism" which don't necessarily hold true as you're using it.

Overall I would agree "social liberal elites," i.e. limousine liberals, do suck.

[fj1200]

You won't find here what you found at our previous forum. We have some liberals here but they are generally well-behaved.

OMG! Where?!?