What about the small people?

I’ve been thinking about BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg’s comment about the “small people” he pledged to help. In our terms, he was talking about the working shmoes, like you and me, and not the Liberal Elite’s summer vacation homes located in the white-sands areas of the Gulf coast. Sure, the Elite would take a hit on housing values, but hey, it’s a write-off on their taxes, something the Liberal Elite are always looking for.

Who are the liberal elite? They are the “old money” people who have, through their generations, amassed a large pile of money and passed it on to their children. Sure there are some free-market types in this situation, but the vast majority of them are liberals, and have been liberals for decades. They have the money and connections to get their kids into the ivy league colleges that establish their elite credentials. These credentials allow them to take the reigns of the companies who might be publically owned, and justify them to the stock holders.

There are many privately owned companies that don’t need these credentials, and, indeed, many don’t bother to get their scions into these schools (or perhaps the did and they got thrown out). But those true liberal elite who feel that it is their duty, nay, their responsibility to take care of the “small people.” The small people are those faceless, nameless masses who do the grunt work and provide the headcount needed to grease the wheels of the economy.

The Europeans, the society that our president admires so much, understand these class separations. There are the leader class, who’s families have, for hundreds of years, run the countries and taken care of the hoy-polloy, the rabble, the breeders who infest the population centers.

The liberal elite are raised from day 1 to know that they are the top of the heap, the alpha’s, the ones that others bow down to. They come form a superior genetic line, and are expected to perform. They have people to clean up after them, to fix things, to take care of the petty details. Accountants, lawyers, maids and nannies are essential to them, and they must have enough money to support this crew. Indeed they feel entitled to the services provided by these workers.

There is something called “liberal angst” which is the guilt associated with having more than others. Liberals want to assuage this guilt in any way but giving up the cash that they feel they are entitled to. So, how do you “help” the small people? Well, you tell them what to do. These small people don’t have the inherit genetic advantages that the elite were born with. So, by the grace of whatever it is that they believe in, they can help the small people by guiding their lives in directions that they feel they need to go to keep the gears and cogs of industry moving. It’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

Now please don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in class envy, you make it in the USA, good on ya. Spend your money on nice houses, cars and boats. People have to make these items and you keep people employed. What I have a problem with is those who have everything in life, and feel the need that they have to help the stupid, helpless “small people” with their daily lives with their grandiose visions of wealth distribution.

I don't think many people understand what a huge mammoth, spectacular FAIL the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was. Imagine in your mind's eye this happening in the USA. Texastan, Califoniastan, Floridastan. You get the picture. Each former state with it's own army, boarders, and messed up economies. Just like all the 'stans that resulted in the breakup of the USSR.

USSR is just another in a long line of total failures of the Socialist/Communist/Progressive system. It seems odd that in spite of this, people keep trying it over and over. Why? I've been mulling this over for quite a while and I have a couple of theories.

Theory one is what I call the "ponzy" theory. In a ponzi scheme, money is paid in with wild claims of profitability. As the system feeds upon itself, it eventually collapses. Who makes out in the ponzy scheme are those who know its a ponzy and not a legitimate investment opportunity. These people are skimming the cash and, if they are smart, hiding it from the inevitable investigations. These people wind up on yachts in the Caribbean.

Socialism is a similar situation. Eventually socialism must collapse because a socialistic economy always runs out of money sooner or later. It is a ponzy scheme that takes wealth away from those who have it and use it to perpetuate a mammoth bureaucracy. Eventually the people providing the cash run out. The ones who know it's doomed from the start, and are smart, make sure they have plenty of cash squirreled and a good escape plan in place when the whole house of cards inevitably collapses.

Theory two is that the Dem/Libs/Progs honestly think that the failures are due to the mismanagement of one fine point or other. They have such huge egos and trust in their elite educations and background that they think that *this time we will get it RIGHT*!

This does bring up the old saw of what is the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And who suffers from this insanity. You and me, the people of the USA. When you are a Liberal Elite, we citizens are just a bunch of headcount to experiment on. They all have their foreign bank accounts and escape plans set up and ready to go. Just in case they *are* insane.