“We are under attack, but we don’t have to go along with the ELITES’ globalist agendas.”
.
I would like to propose that eloquent Team Freedom leaders such as yourself begin using the term “Soviet Socialists” in lieu of the less precise word “Elite” which would otherwise include anyone ranging from Tiger Woods to Klaus Schwab to Elon Musk to Hank Reardon. In the original Russian, the word “Soviet” was synonymous with the English words “councilor” or “advisor” and was attached to any individual or institution that was uncritically granted the aura of wisdom or expertise as justification for their authority. (See for example “Supreme Privy Soviet”—1726-1730 or “Imperial Soviet”—1762 or “Soviet at the Highest Court”—1768-1801). Thus, a “Soviet Socialist” would precisely define an individual in a position of authority who presumes to have a superior wisdom—a philosopher king—and who advocates for state power and collectivism. Likewise, groups of such individuals, such as the WEF, would comprise a union of Soviet Socialists and, to the extent that such groups seek an “alliance” of “voluntary” likeminded states ( think New World Order or EU), they would compromise a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Thanks for reading, and for your comment, Stephen. I understand your intent to use the right language to describe concepts, but I do think it would be confusing to people to use "Soviet Socialists" rather than terms such as "elites" or "influential classes," or "people in power." Better to review history and point to the similarities, and the tactics and motives of those who are undermining freedom and human rights today. The "Soviet" term ignores Chinese Communism, and Fascism, both of which I believe are greater threats today than a resurgence of Soviet Communism.
“We are under attack, but we don’t have to go along with the ELITES’ globalist agendas.”
.
I would like to propose that eloquent Team Freedom leaders such as yourself begin using the term “Soviet Socialists” in lieu of the less precise word “Elite” which would otherwise include anyone ranging from Tiger Woods to Klaus Schwab to Elon Musk to Hank Reardon. In the original Russian, the word “Soviet” was synonymous with the English words “councilor” or “advisor” and was attached to any individual or institution that was uncritically granted the aura of wisdom or expertise as justification for their authority. (See for example “Supreme Privy Soviet”—1726-1730 or “Imperial Soviet”—1762 or “Soviet at the Highest Court”—1768-1801). Thus, a “Soviet Socialist” would precisely define an individual in a position of authority who presumes to have a superior wisdom—a philosopher king—and who advocates for state power and collectivism. Likewise, groups of such individuals, such as the WEF, would comprise a union of Soviet Socialists and, to the extent that such groups seek an “alliance” of “voluntary” likeminded states ( think New World Order or EU), they would compromise a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Thanks for reading, and for your comment, Stephen. I understand your intent to use the right language to describe concepts, but I do think it would be confusing to people to use "Soviet Socialists" rather than terms such as "elites" or "influential classes," or "people in power." Better to review history and point to the similarities, and the tactics and motives of those who are undermining freedom and human rights today. The "Soviet" term ignores Chinese Communism, and Fascism, both of which I believe are greater threats today than a resurgence of Soviet Communism.