Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Leftists Keep Pushing the False Wealth and Income Inequality Propaganda

24 Mar 2011

Don Dickinson

Recently a fellow, but decidedly left-leaning, retired Colonel of Infantry who I have known for over three decades sent me a 22 Mar 2011 New York Times opinion piece by Professor Michael I. Norton on the title issues of, “Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?” And, “Why do Americans seem unperturbed about the growing gap between the rich and the poor?” The article is a perfect foil for my comments on the vacuous nature of what constitutes most leftist thinking.

Just as Muslims have not had a new idea since Mohammad, leftists have not had a new idea since Karl Marx. And if that is not bad enough, the silly ideas of Mohammad and Marx are merely heresies of the great ideas of Western civilization. Islam and leftism are the worldviews of jealous, pathetic, and emotional children who survive by parasitizing the productive people who have accomplished so much in the greatest civilization in history. Islam and the left are now hell-bent on killing their host and if they succeed, they will suffer the same fate as all parasites that go too far.

Poor professor Norton in his very first sentence reveals the stupidity 1 of his thought processes. He says that he and an apparently similarly stupid colleague “found that Americans drastically underestimated the level of wealth inequality in the United States.” Their unstated and fallacious assumption is that good and decent productive Americans should give a damn about the level of wealth inequality. Leftists got the idea that wealth inequality was a horrific condition from the French revolutionary intellectuals and Marx and have been stuck on that stupidity ever since.

Recent comments similar to those of Professor Norton by Howard Dean and Andrew Romono indicate that the left is widely dragging out the old wealth inequality canard as part of their latest general propaganda campaign to confuse and control the masses.

  • I totally agree with this inequality stuff and this is not a left-right issue. The fact of the matter is when social inequality and wage inequality gets too large, you have social instability. We are in a position now where we are in trouble in this country. I wouldn’t say we could be Egypt next week, but people really are disillusioned by the government and corporations. They don’t trust any institution very much, and that’s why.
    – Howard Dean, 7 Feb 2011, MSNBC, “The Last Word with Laurence O’Donnell”
  •  One of the big ones is income inequality in the United States. We’re one of the most in-equal societies in the developed world.
    – Andrew Romano, 22 Mar 2011, Newsweek senior writer on the CBS Early Show, touting a survey in the magazine’s latest issue showing that 38% of Americans failed the U.S. citizenship test and claiming to know that a major cause was income inequality.

Contrary to the leftist canard, history shows no evidence of revolutions caused simply by wealth or income inequality. History is replete with examples of leftists stirring up revolutions that always end very badly for the people they are allegedly trying to help.

In the case of the French revolution, the peasants did not spontaneously rise up against the monarchy because they were disturbed by the monumental wealth inequality between them and the king. They rose because the leftist intellectuals told them that they should. Typical of leftist revolutions, it was the cause of massive social turmoil and bloodshed that did not end well for anyone in France except Napoleon and his cronies. The leftist French revolution replaced one leftist royal tyrant with a worse leftist military tyrant who proceeded to cause millions of deaths in France and across Europe and Egypt. Oh, and the wealth distribution problem was not fixed.

The revolutions of the masses oppressed by capitalism’s alleged horrific wealth inequality problem as forecast by Marx never happened. They never occurred because capitalism and other Western ideas, far from oppressing the masses, were the only things that have ever routinely made life better for the masses. In the communist revolutions of the 20th century, it took leftist intellectual rabble rousers (community organizers) like Lenin and Mao to get the masses stirred up even in places where they were truly oppressed—although by traditional old-style leftist monarchal tyrants—not by capitalists.

Lenin himself noted that in advanced capitalist societies, the workers made too much and had too good a life to be easily—or apparently at all—stripped of their “false consciousness” and stirred to revolution. Yes, Lenin, nearly a century before, was as confused by the realities of our conservative universe as are Professor Norton and company. We can only infer that many leftists have not only a feeble grasp on reality but considerable resistance to new ideas.

Gramsci famously and correctly figured out that the masses of western societies, and the institutions of those societies, were too happy and strong for spontaneous revolution to occur and that a “long march through the institutions of Western civilization” would be necessary to corrupt them from within. That march is now complete in Europe and largely complete in America.

The exceptions to succumbing to the Gramsci tactic are found in the good, decent, and productive people of America. Whether Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers, evangelical Christians, Joe the Plumber, or me, they have either not been offered or have spit out the leftist Kool-Aide. They know or simply believe that America, far from being a force for evil in the world, has been the greatest force for good in history.

The simple fact is that since King Narmer of Egypt [Menes in Herodotus] inaugurated the nation-state in 2950BC there has been wealth inequality. Narmer can properly be called the first leftist ever to control a nation-state. He ruled according to a tyrannical and totalitarian monarchist pattern that was to be the standard, with very few exceptions, until the ancient Greek, Christian, scientific, industrial, and American revolutions (by a long and difficult course of triumph of conservatism over leftism) made prosperity for the masses even possible.

Leftists generally rhapsodize about the pre-nation-state condition of mankind and the totally false conception of the “noble savage.” Modern archaeology and sociology have found that Hobbes was on the mark when he characterized “the life of man, [as] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

  • …many intellectuals have embraced the image of peaceable, egalitarian, and ecology-loving natives. But in the past two decades anthropologists have gathered data on life and death in pre-state societies rather than accepting the warm and fuzzy stereotypes. What did they find? In a nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.
    – Steven Pinker, 2002, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature

It is out of sheer schadenfreude that I cite the eponymously named Dr. Pinker as a supporting reference. Perhaps Professor Norton would be well advised to consult his much better informed fellow Harvard lefty before he continues to embarrass himself in print.

The ancient Greeks were the first to solidly break with traditional primitive and social thinking and embark on the rational and logical critical thinking that has led to Christianity, science, capitalism, industrialism, and freedom and liberty as most fully developed in Americanism. From the start, conservative thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle were opposed by leftist intellectuals like Plato. The battle of left and right worldviews continues to the present.

Leftists like Professor Norton are stuck on stupid precisely because the very nature of the universe and man is profoundly conservative. Critical thinking, science, Christianity, industry, and republican governments of the people would not even be possible if the universe was the deterministic chaos that doctrinaire leftists conceive it to be. It was the ancient Greek notice of the power of ordered thinking in the examination of the ordered universe that started the long march of progress that has characterized Western and only Western civilization.

Leftists delight in pointing out past travails like slavery and the status of women that were the general lot of humanity and then acting as though they are responsible for the redress of those timeless evils. The fact is that the moral push to end slavery and elevate women came only from Christianity, the political will came only from republican governments, and the physical ability to discard oppression was provided only by science, industry, and capitalism. Absent the unprecedented wealth generated by science, industry and capitalism, social progress can be nothing more than a fantastic idea.

So, typical of leftists since the French revolution and Marx, now comes Professor Norton and company to critique American accomplishments with the tired and roundly discredited idea that America has a wealth inequality problem which the people are just too ill-informed to comprehend. He and his leftist ilk have been on the wrong side of history since 2950BC, but now they are saying that after 4,961 years of their causing nothing but destruction, degradation, and death, it is time to listen to them.

Balderdash! The universe is profoundly conservative in that it adheres strictly to the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, human nature, and reason in that order. Leftism in general is the doctrine that personal power for the ruler and his group of oligarchs over the masses is the best form of government. Originally and for over four and a half thousand years, this power was successfully proselytized as a divine right. Increasingly after the advent and conspicuous success of the American republic, leftists have altered their public propaganda toward being champions of the people. When leftists are judged by the outcomes of their policies rather than by expressed intent, the traditional self-serving falseness, corruption, depravity, and evil outcomes of their actions are readily apparent. Talking nicely, while doing self-aggrandizing evil, only fools the gullible and those who are in denial.

Professor Norton and company haul out the old straw man of the evils of wealth inequality, but like all leftists never explain why wealth inequality is bad per se or worse than the innumerable other inequalities that are a natural part of the human condition. Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Empress of India from 1837 to 1901 is an excellent example of why the leftist obsession with wealth inequality is such a silly idea. She ascended to the throne of the most powerful empire that has ever existed at a time when all the revolutions that brought Western civilization to supremacy were centuries or decades old. She had as much wealth and power as anyone who has ever lived; however, many aspects of her life would be considered a miserable and unconscionable hardship by millions of today’s Western leftists and poor people.

The great revolutions that brought mankind out of its default miserable Hobbesian existence were well underway in the time of Victoria, but still she did not have central heat or air conditioning, screens on the windows, antibiotics, anesthetics, modern medical care and many other modern miracles. She bore nine children the old fashioned painful way, without anesthesia. She did not like being pregnant, having infants around, or nursing. She underwent the mental and physical pain and mental anguish of having all those children because she felt it was her duty. What a concept! She experienced the premature death of her husband and some of her children while enduring rheumatism and cataracts for many years, conditions now routinely treated satisfactorily in the poorest Americans.

The poorest Americans, criminals in prison, enemy combatants in Gitmo, and even the illegal alien invaders now get far better health care and live far more comfortable lives than did Queen Victoria. Explain to me why it is that either the poor or I need to rise up in revolt because productive American capitalists generate unprecedented wealth that generates marvels from which we benefit.

As astounding as it may seem to Professor Norton and leftists in general, many millions of poor and middle class Americans simply do not care by how much a very few Americans exceed them in financial wealth. Millions of Americans seem to be perfectly happy in relatively simple circumstances. When they are personally happy, they spend no time obsessing over the vast wealth of men like Buffett and Gates. Why should they? The poorest Americans are, thanks to the revolutions they are heir to, the most secure and comfortable people who have ever lived.

How much richer the wealthy are than the poorest measures nothing about the quality of life of the poorest. Recently one of Professor Norton’s leftist cronies wrote a similarly inane and horrified screed on how the income gap was greater in America than in Egypt. The difference he, like Norton, was too stuck on leftist stupid to comprehend is that in the Arab-governed tyrannical leftist oligarchies, poverty is real, abject, life-threatening, and the condition of the majority of the people. We do not now and have never seen streams of America’s poor heading for any of the world’s leftist Utopias.

The problem of wealth inequality is an invented one that has grown out of this unprecedented time of wealth and plenty created by free market capitalism. The irony is that as the left advocates provision of impossible goods to all in the interest of fairness and goodness, they will try to implement it with regulations that will only kill the capitalist goose that is laying the golden eggs.

We will end up with the only kind of equality socialism has ever produced; equality of poverty and misery. Of course, the leftist politicians who bring it all on are too kind and important to have to suffer the indignities of the masses.

1. Some will object to the correctness or propriety of my characterization of the quality of Norton and his colleague’s thinking. Stupidity is the correct word because Norton by foisting the tired old leftist dogma of the horrors of wealth inequality clearly is lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind. He is tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless; annoying; irritating; and troublesome. As a Harvard professor he cannot claim mere ignorance due to lack of exposure to better information and ideas. He is as LTG Russel Honoré so precisely diagnosed chronic leftist thinking in a reporter, “stuck on stupid.” Leftists are almost universally stuck on stupid because they place the purity of their leftist ideological thinking over truth, fact, evidence, logic, reason, and reality. Someone who is trying to bend reality to his preconceived notions is by definition stupid. As to the propriety of the use of such an offensive word, I say that America is way too far down the road toward destruction by the combined forces of Islam and leftism for genteel platitudes and political correctness to be justifiable.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>