Bottom line: I coined the phrase: “The Democrats love the poor… so much that they’re constantly making more of them.” We know why: more poor people = more Dem voters. Simple as that. Therefore, obviously, we Conservatives must “hate” poor people, because we’re constantly trying to make fewer of them. We’re constantly trying to “convert” them into … not poor people. Yep, I guess it’s plain … we just don’t like ’em.
Faced with a constant barrage of leftist accusations that we Conservatives — and especially we white, heterosexual dudes — are cold, cruel, heartless, sexist bastards, as well as greedy, selfish scoundrels, why doesn’t anyone in the media simply ask: “Why?”
Seriously. Does it somehow serve our financial interests to spend all the time, money and effort we must have to spend, in order to keep women, black people, gays, the poor, as well as the elderly and the sick … downtrodden and requiring government services? I mean, think of it… all that money for security, for cleaning up after them, for crime prevention and control? The downtrodden are, let’s face it, a massive drain on society’s — therefore on our — resources, on our time and money.
I could see that being something that might irritate the more short-sighted among us Conservatives and heterosexual white dudes, but surely the solution to that particular problem is not to make more downtrodden people, but rather a whole lot fewer. How do you make fewer downtrodden people? Simple: make ’em … not downtrodden. This last is, obviously, in our — Conservatives’ and heterosexual white dudes’ — best interests. It’s hardly an act of “hate” to make the downtrodden less, or not, downtrodden. Everyone knows that.
Prosperity begets more prosperity. The prosperous, if they’re really being selfish and greedy … will bend their efforts to reducing poverty, disease, crime, violence … all things that are massive, wasteful drains on the resources of … the prosperous. Hint: giving the poor money doesn’t help them to become not poor.
My question from above: “Why?” — is a simple question. The left accuse us of hating women, black Americans, immigrants, the poor… Why? Seriously. Why would we have any animosity whatsoever toward anyone in these groups? Why would we hate at all? What is the explanation? There has to be an explanation, if there are so many of us. Why would we be such jerks?
Furthermore, and just as a point that really needs some clarification, why would this contempt for the poor, for women, gays, the sick, elderly and black Americans, somehow be unique to us right-wingers? What would ever suggest that the left are immune to all these character flaws? Answer: one thing only — they’re the ones making the accusations.
That’s it. Nothing else.
In the cold, harsh glare of someone asking, “Why?” and then following up, that’s looking a lot like nothing more than deflection After all, the various “hate groups” used as bogeymen by the left — groups like the KKK — are actually creations of the left.
In a recent post (here) we suggested that people should “Think It Through.” In so doing, we advised people to challenge their preconceived notions, as well as what they hear and see in the media — all the media — and from all sources of ideas and communications. Oddly enough, when you do that, you find that the accusations of the left against us Conservative, heterosexual, white dudes, become … ridiculous.
Here is a simple truth, that likely will stand up to hard scrutiny by anyone: Western Civilization — as conceived and implemented by mostly white, heterosexual dudes — is the most civilized, the freest, the most generous, the least racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, cruel, mean-spirited, the biggest-hearted, most expansive, welcoming, friendly, congenial society ever devised in the history of humanity… by a whole lot.
Go ahead, find any other in the history of the world where you can do what you can do, be what and who you can be, achieve what you can achieve, more easily and more freely than in America. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
A massive drain… that’s the phrase we used above. The downtrodden are a massive drain on the resources of society, and therefore, of the prosperous. Why don’t they, the prosperous, if they’re so greedy, and if they’re so powerful, just cut it out, and cut the poor adrift? There to drift eventually to death and oblivion? Why?
Well, several things are true, in the best order I could come up with:
- The rich don’t stop, or act powerfully against, government programs today. How can this be true, if the rich are so powerful? (See Item #3, below)
- The rich didn’t prevent the implementation of those programs in the first place. How can this be true, if the rich are so powerful? (See Item #3, below)
- Many among the rich got rich off those government programs that, ultimately, pay the poor to remain poor(1).
- Ipso facto: the rich don’t hate the poor … in the real meaning of the word “hate.” Since, it’s in the best interest of the rich to make the poor … not poor, this shouldn’t be surprising.
- Life has, in general, treated the rich pretty well. As a result, they’re under fewer pressures to hate, to disrespect, to abuse … anyone. So, generally … they don’t.(2)
Why would we hate, say, women? They’re half of humanity! And the vast majority of us adore our wives, mothers, sisters and daughters… and we always have. In other words, the most consequential women in our lives are, generally, beloved figures. Why would we go from loving all these highly influential women in our lives … to hating all women in general? If you suggest that we — we Conservatives and heterosexual white guys — are trying to control them, then you might have a point. However, have you ever met a, you know, a woman? No one on earth is better at exerting control over the people — the men and the women — in her life than a woman. Sorry… it’s just that way. So, if “control” seems to be the issue, then that’s at worst … a wash. Generally, we men end up on the losing side of that particular interaction. The expression is: “Happy wife, happy life.” There’s no equivalent expression suggesting that anyone make any particular effort to make sure that hubby’s happy.
There’s just no real reason under the sun for men of any stripe to hate women. And a million reasons for us to love, revere, respect, admire, to be in awe of them. And that’s how the vast majority of men feel about women. By the way, the reverse is true as well. Absent feminism’s codswallop, there’s no real reason for women to do anything other than to love, revere, respect, admire, to be in awe of men.
Feminism has distorted that plain reality, but feminism’s nothing more than — in the long-term scheme of things — a passing, toxic fad, used by the political left to get more recruits.
So, when the left accuse us, as they so often do of hating women, we should ask, “Why? Why would we do that?” Because the answer is simple: we don’t.
Now, why would we hate black Americans? There’s no institutional segregation in America, but there’s a heckuva lot of socio-cultural segregation. In America, as likely in all the world, birds of a feather do flock together.
Most white people don’t deal with black people, and vice-versa, much, if at all, in day-to-day life. And it’s the same thing. If we’re trying to keep them poor, then we’re plainly acting against our own best interests. Why, serious question, would we do that silly thing?
Well, the answer is simple: we wouldn’t. Don’t forget: it’s the left who are constantly accusing us of acting only in our own best interests. Okay, if you accept that, then you can’t possibly imagine that we would want to keep black Americans downtrodden. That’s obviously against our own best interests. Simple as that. And pretty obvious.
As we’ve often said, leftist thought is awash in massive internal contradictions, non sequitur, and generally nonsensical codswallop. All of which is really easily exposed by simply asking: “Why?”
Relentlessly. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Furthermore, the entire trajectory of western civilization for centuries has been toward greater acceptance — for better or worse — of all people, regardless of differences. If, as the left insist, we evil white dudes have bought into the whole White Western Civilization thing, then we’re ever more accepting of black people, and of everyone … again, for better or worse.(3)
We’re supposed to be greedy and obsessed with staying rich at the expense of the poor.
But it’s hyper-basic economics to understand that the more poor people there are, the fewer opportunities there are for the rich to stay rich, or to become richer. Conversely, all rich people understand this: the more poor people there are, the greater the risk that they themselves will become poor. The rich hate poverty. The rich understand full well that if poor people were a lot better off, then everyone, themselves included, would be a whole lot better off.
Here’s a simple truth: All business people understand that poor people are bad for business. Poor people are not good consumers. Why? They don’t have a lot of money. If we’re going to get or stay rich, we need money flowing through the system. Poor people, pure and simple, don’t contribute meaningfully to that flow of money.(4)
Watch a television commercial sometime. What’s the commercial trying to say? Easy: Give me some of your money. If you’re poor, you don’t have a lot of money, if any, to give to that advertiser. And the advertiser wasted the money he spent on showing you his commercial. If we’re so greedy, then surely we’re not in favor of just throwing our money away like that.
I coined the phrase: “The Democrats love the poor… so much that they’re constantly making more of them.”
I guess in that sense then, we “hate” the poor … because we’re constantly trying to make fewer of them. By generating ever more opportunities to escape poverty. In that convoluted sense, you could say that we Conservatives “hate” the poor. Just as a doctor “hates” a sick person. So much so that the physician tries to cure him. We “hate” the poor so much that we try to make them rich … I guess it’s so that we don’t have to dislike them so much. 🙂
You see, it’s because if the poor become rich, then we have vastly more opportunities to be even richer! Again, that’s more basic than Economics 101. If, as the left says, we’re all greedy, then that is our real, proper state-of-mind. It is safe to say that we Conservatives — and, of course, we heterosexual white dudes — hate poverty. That should be what the left says about us. But, only because it’s true. 🙂 But they won’t, because the left loves poverty. An affection that, obviously, they can’t confess to having. That’s vastly different from having any real affection for the poor. The left loves poverty because the more poor there are, the more Democrat voters there are. Simple as that.
As we said in the above-linked post, we urge you to … Think It Through.
One of the ways to do that is to ask, “Why?”
Keep asking it. Ask it until your interlocutor gets a quizzical look on his face and says, “I’m not sure. I might have to get back to you.” All inquiries that meet a solid rock wall of “Why?” must inevitably get to a point where the only rational response can be — at best — “I’m not sure. I might have to get back to you.” If he doesn’t get to that point, then he’s a fraud and a liar, and you should have no qualms about telling him that to his face.
(1) This really ought to tick you off. Here at our small, but inreasingly influential think tank, we hold no brief for “the rich.” There are a lot of very rich people doing a lot of very bad things. George Soros comes quickly to mind, but there’s also Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both geniuses, both of whom show that the only truly comprehensive genius in history was Jesus Christ. Some incandescent geniuses are also … blithering idiots. Albert Einstein was another such genius/idiot.
(2) Mind you, we carry no water for the rich here. They’re people too. Hence, they’re prone to all the same mindless idiocies as anyone else who meets the description: a person. Furthermore, like anyone else, we have even less patience for the prosperous when they demonstrate the same character flaws as others. After all, they have far less reason to exhibit any character flaws at all in their circumstances.
Many times, I’ve told my children that they need to “live consciously.” That is, to be aware of their surroundings, of the people with whom they’re interacting, of the times in which they live, of the ways of the world around them. This is so they can be both socially graceful, as well as have some really important survival skills. Remember: we’re only several generations, among thousands of generations in history, removed from the entire world’s being entirely controlled by despotisms, tyrannies, petty martinets and bloodthirsty warlords. In much of the rest of the world, that continues to be the situation.
Oh, yes… in the western world, we got rid of that crap centuries ago.
(3) We don’t, for example, do homosexuals any favors by simply accepting their disorder as normal. It’s plainly not normal. Nor, plainly, is it good for them to foreclose all their options to try to obtain a cure. This is the same for so-called “transgender people.” First, there is no such thing as a “transgender person.” There are people with mental disorders and confusions.
Don’t forget: the American Psychological Association classified homosexuality as a disorder a mere 20 years ago. Then they didn’t. There was no scientific justification whatsoever for such a decision, leading to the obvious conclusion that it was a political move. Yet another scientific conclusion determined purely by politics. Politics has unalterably polluted a lot of sciences throughout history, most notably climate science today. It’s true of Psychology as well. How do I know this? Well, one thing is that I come from a family of psychologists. They know it, and they have told me of it.
(4) Unless, that is, you count the parasitical enterprises — and there are a lot of them — that profit from transferring “government” money (ie your tax dollars and mine) to poor people. This ought to be its own massive issue. There are tens of thousands of enterprises whose revenues are entirely dependent on supporting the legal structure that pays poor people to remain poor. If you were to remove these cancers from the American body politic, you immediately throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. These people would go from being employed parasites to wards of the state. Hardly a great improvement of their condition. However, if you were to remove the parasitical industry sucking money from the producers to the takers, you’d at least have a start in the right direction.