Wonder how many of these folks Obama considers the “evil rich” (since most support him)?
In light of this Forbes listing, I thought it was time to recycle this post from May of 2012:
Because at the intersection of those two words is “hypocrite”.
This isn’t about Obama, although USA Today speculates that he may be worth up to $10,000,000.
This is about someone who makes no bones about being a socialist. This one was just elected as the president of France and is the head of the French Socialist Party. Wonder how Francois Hollande explains this away to the proletariat struggling against the oppression of the capitalist bourgeois?
France’s new Socialist president owns three holiday homes in the glamorous Riviera resort of Cannes, it emerged today.
The 57-year-old who ‘dislikes the rich’ and wants to revolutionise his country with high taxes and an onslaught against bankers is in fact hugely wealthy himself.
His assets were published today in the Official Journal, the gazette which contains verified information about France’s government.
To the undoubted embarrassment to the most left-wing leader in Europe and a man who styles himself as ‘Mr Normal’, they are valued at almost £1million.
It will also reinforce accusations that Hollande is a ‘Gauche Caviar’, or ‘Left-Wing Caviar’ – the Gallic equivalent of a Champagne Socialist.
Among other assets are three current accounts in French banks – two with global giant Societe Generale and one with the Postal Bank – and a life insurance policy.
As well as the spacious Paris apartment he shares with his lover Valerie Trierweiler, Hollande owns a palatial villa in Mougins, the prestigious hill-top Cannes suburb where the artist Pablo Picasso used to live.
It is valued by the Official Journal at €800,000 (£642,000), and is just a short drive from Hollande’s two flats in the Cannes. They are each priced at €230,000 (£185,000) and €140,000 (£112,000.
Back last November in “The Paradox of the Wealthy Progressive“, I wrote:
If life is truly unfair, and it is truly the fault of the “rich” (which includes the “progressive” rich”), why are there still rich “progressives” walking around? If they truly believe what they are saying, would only increasing taxation on the rich be sufficient? To be true to their words, would they not have to give away everything they have until they have no more than the average #OWSer in Zuccotti Park?
There really aren’t too many options to reconcile this discontinuity. The “progressive” rich:
- They think that increased taxation can be used as a bribe to the lower class to forestall losing everything to a true communist state – they believe that the masses are stupid enough to be pacified.
- They are truly ignorant of human nature and history – or maybe just ignorant of what collectivism really means in practice.
- They rose to riches without yielding physical value – though inheritance, growing rich fast through some brilliant paradigm shifting idea (google, FaceBook) or possessing a special talent currently valued by society – such as rap music*, acting or sports. One can argue that all these have value but if we removed them from existence, would there be a lasting impact on the creation of food, clothing or shelter – no. That is my yardstick for lasting societal value.
- They believe that they will be protected in this new Utopia and will still be on top.
- Are liars and believe nothing they say and are only motivated by a sense of elitism and selfish pride – they want to be seen as our “betters” or being more “noble” than other citizens. Hypocrites.
The socialist mantra isn’t “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need” any longer – it is “more for me, less for thee”.
If you are going to vote for a socialist, maybe you should check to see if they really are one.
Je regrette, mais, ils sont fous incompétents.
Oui, et il est fous qui continuent à les élire.
Pingback: Without double standards, modern liberalism would have no standards at all « b5blue's Liberal Reformation Blog
They know exactly what they are doing and where the inevitable end lies. If crazy is making yourself the ruling elite with complete power, then yes, they are crazy. I’m baffled that so many Americans refuse to “see” the links… They are the ones that are crazy, or are they just stupid?
Not stupid – indoctrinated. But, yes, those who cannot see what is before them are operating under a severe handicap.
Merriam webster definition:
Stupid–Date: 1541
1 a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
Does one have to be stupid in order to be indoctrinated, or is one indoctrinated to be made stupid?
Texas,
I’ll speak for myself and let you decide whether or not you agree.
The way I see it, one can possess superior intelligence, but if one does not also possess wisdom and/or understanding, then that wisdom can and often will be misapplied. After considerable consideration on this subject, I have come to believe this happens far more than people realize. It is how otherwise very intelligent individuals can be taken by seemingly convincing arguments that do not hold up under the careful examination of reason.
For example: this is how Reagan could have started out as a Democrat. He did not start out ‘stupid;’ he was always intelligent. But, as with many things, wisdom comes with experience. So, because he was intelligent, as he gained experience, Reagan came to understand his errors.
Anyway, this is how I see it.
Very good.
More food for thought? Does our “modern day system” encourage those that are stupid to pro-create at a faster rate than those that are intelligent. Our “public” educational system has made it their priority to indoctrinate, rather than educate. Reagan was intelligent and benefitted from being “educated” before the education system perfected their implementation of indoctrination.
Fertility rates may have some connection to education, but you would have to make sure you account for the indoctrination element before you make that declaration. It is as likely that we are indoctrinated to accept that we must lower the birth rate as it is to be a genuine conclusion born of proper education. After that, you need to account for affluence, as you will find a connection between low birth rates and higher incomes as well. This is not necessarily connected to education, either, as many wealthy people never went to college, yet they exhibit the 1 child syndrome (if any). You may be dealing with selfishness here, or even some factor I have not thought about yet.
As for our education system: that is the fault of those who embraced the founding ideas of liberty but who became to lazy or self-centered to tend to their duty to ensure those ideals are handed down to the next generation. Since we are using Reagan, I would remind you that he was the one who told us liberty is not hereditary; it must be taught to each generation. We allowed collectivists to seize control of our schools and courts, now we are paying the price. The solution will not easy – nor pretty – which is why I fear it is already beyond our grasp (too few left who understand and are willing to do the heavy lifting).
Anyway, as before, just my thoughts on the matter. Take them and use them however you wish.
Pingback: Hussein the Fakir | The Rio Norte Line
Pingback: And the Winner is… | The Rio Norte Line