Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

The root of the problem still is a group of people who believe that they can run our lives better than we can. Time and time again, they have

Big bosses like Soros, or minions like Hochul?

Both. The only difference is that Hochul doesn't have the money/power to force her views on everyone else without help from someone like Soros.

Hochul seems dumb, but not arrogant. She knows that she's nobody's
hero.

Exactly. She's in the "Wannabee Elitist" category. She can't make it on her own, so the only way she can move is on someone else's coat tails.

But Soros seems smart and arrogant. He might actually think he's
helping in some minor and indirect way, and that's why he calls himself
"a philanthropist."

And that's usually where they start. They get their money through (as far as we know) legitimate means. Then they want to help.
But they don't understand how to help.

Example:
Take a drug addict who's living on the street. Give him a house and money and now he's a drig addict living in a house with cash for food and more drugs. He'll soon burn down the house making meth. Stop giving him money and he'll be back on the street tomorrow. In other words: Giving him something didn't change him and so he gets into the same problem as before.

And like most Elitists, if their policies fail, double down on those failed policies.

So now, they think that these people must be FORCED to act "correctly". And I think you can see the progression from there. After a generation or 2, the Elitists forget that they were supposed to be helping and start being very totaltaranist.

The new definition of philanthropist: a person who controls people by using their own money to abuse them. fil-an-thro-pist

Lefties like to change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.


... Solve the problems of the world: Vote anarchist.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)