Income Inequality Exposed: the Cathedral Lives

Yes, it seems to be true: RT reports that by 2016, the richest 1% of the global human population will control more wealth than the other 99% of the human population combined. Through Oxfam, an “anti-poverty charity,” we learn that:

Last year, Oxfam reported that the world’s 85 richest people have the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent (3.5 billion people). This year, Oxfam said the reality has become more worrisome, with just 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people.

We are alerted to a “dark portrait” of the state of affairs. This news proves we face “challenges [of] severe wealth concentration.”

However, despite constant warnings that the upward curve in wealth concentration will only lead to disaster, the rich continue to gobble up a bigger and bigger share of the global wealth pie.

“Gobble up.” RT’s gratuitous baiting of low-brow egalitarian Western leftists is transparent, but rather amusing. Right-wing opponents of Putin’s Russia would do well to remember that RT is not aimed at Russians, but at English-speaking Western leftists. RT will run pieces on the evils of rising income inequality more fervently than an Occupy Wall Street hippie (along with pieces on racism in America, the surveillance state, etc.) because the Kremlin implicitly recognizes that egging on these kinds of leftists in the West is beneficial for Russia. Better to keep the non-profit mafia whining about Ferguson than Sochi — if you think Putin is crying into his fair-trade coffee about the treatment of African-American brothas by white 1%ers, you are sorely mistaken. Speaking of the non-profit mafia:

Oxfam executive director Winnie Byanyima, who will co-chair the Davos symposium, said she will draw attention to the grim fact that “one in nine people do not have enough to eat and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day,” she told The Guardian.

“Do we really want to live in a world where the 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

A cursory Google search reveals that Mrs. Byanyima is a Ugandan aeronautical engineer, politician and diplomat. Apparently, she was Uganda’s first female aeronautical engineer. Like all heartfelt tinkerers, Mrs. Byanyima quit her engineering job with the now-defunct Uganda Airlines as soon as she got it to help start the Ugandan Bush War. (Mrs. Byanyima, who was born in 1959, and received both a B.Sc. and an M.Sc. from British universities, would have graduated high school in 1977, just four years before the Bush War began in 1981, and would have required between four and eight years to receive her degrees.) Apparently, Mrs. Byanyima found fomenting political unrest to be more conducive to her skillset than engineering, and she later served in various Ugandan governmental posts (under the watch of now long-time Ugandan President/Instigator of Bush Wars Museveni, who she grew up with), and then later United Nations posts (hmm…). As a one-time “Director of the Gender Team in the Bureau for Development Policy” at the UNDP, I am sure Mrs. Byanyima is extremely qualified for her new executive directorship.

To channel Mr. Moldbug, Byanyima’s real education was not in engineering, but in progressive-leftist demotism, and her first big break was not at Uganda Airlines but in an African bush war, and her real career wasn’t in “helping women get a leg up,” but “fomenting political unrest” — only later at the United Nations — all for a good cause, of course! It should go without saying Oxfam believes that “rising inequality and climate change are defining challenges of our time.” Wait, climate change? I thought this was an anti-poverty organization? Silly me, I forgot about the Cathedral again.

The image attached to the Oxfam tweet at the top of this article is emblematic of Western liberal delusions about reality concerning wealth and income. A rough-around-the-edges South Asian man (let’s call him Pakistani Abdul), pushing watermelons hanging off his old bike, presumably to market, with a huge poster of a clean-cut Westerner (read: dirty white devil) sitting in an airplane reading from some new gizmo — the massive hashtag reads “#INEQUALITY.” We are exhorted: “Join the debate!” What do liberals see in this image that we normal people do not? Like all good leftists, they psychologically project. Where we see Pakistani Abdul pushing his wares to the market, presumably pondering this year’s harvest, the leftist liberal sees a potential college student, a potential high-achiever, academician, bureaucrat, hoop-jumper, future lawyer/doctor/consultant (and future progressive) denied a chance for the good and holy life by privileged, rich white racists — if only Abdul could have applied to cawww-lidge! That Abdul couldn’t care less for these bourgeois Western pretensions does not even occur to them. That Abdul is mentally incapable of achieving them is beyond unthinkable.

But no matter — we will continue the “debate” about “income inequality” across “the global community” under the assumption that everyone on the planet has the ability, willpower, desire, necessity and urgency to seek out an upper-middle class Western existence of paper-pushing and platitude-mouthing. It’s a “severe challenge,” after all. Right next to climate change. Hopefully Abdul will get educated and donate some money to those climate change groups. Just check out Oxfam’s seven-point plan to alleviate income inequality:

Oxfam said it was calling on governments to adopt a seven-point plan to alleviate global inequality:

• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.

Rebuild that Berlin Wall, boys, these rich nancies aren’t going anywhere until we’ve got their monies!

• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.

Spread the wealth around, boys, free stuff for everyone! Paid for with our “clamping down” on “tax dodgers.” Wink wink, elbow elbow.

• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth.

Taxes are only a burden when the State is upwards of 40% of the economy, such as in modern times. This was not the case in the past.

• Introduce minimum wages and move toward a living wage for all workers.

When “minimum wage,” lost its luster, the leftists moved onto “living wage.” Next it’ll be a “happy wage.” Because if gays deserve “gay marriage” because they “love,” each other, why shouldn’t the poor deserve “happy wages” if they want? Don’t they deserve to be happy? Why do you hate poor people maaan?

• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.

Destroy patriarchy and abolish the family so that the State can step in and expand its power over people’s lives. Because for the leftist, if the solution isn’t the State — is it really a solution? (No! Off with their heads!)

• Ensure adequate safety nets for the poorest, including a minimum income guarantee.

Repetition, because propaganda doesn’t work if it’s only repeated once.

• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.

Identify the ones who disagree i.e. the ones who won’t let you rent-seek, and immediately begin slandering them as poor-haters, rich gobblers, and what-not. Maybe instigate a class revolution. Bring out the guillotines. You know how it goes with the Left. “Executive” director indeed.

Income inequality is a farce directed by the same leftists responsible for the globe’s social ills, masquerading as righteous crusaders while doing nothing but ruining the value built up by highly non-leftist people. They are rabble-rousers and demagogues of the worst kind. Remember Mrs. Byanyima: the upstart revolutionary guerilla becomes a politically correct United Nations functionary. This is not a coincidence, and it is not an isolated incident. Bernardine Dohrn bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and just a couple police stations. She is now a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Her terrorist husband has a dormitory named after him at the same university, and is himself still a “Distinguished Professor” at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

If this article was rambling, it’s because the gravity of the situation confuses the author’s attempts to make sense of a course of action. When did avowed terrorists become mentors of youth? When did jungle guerillas become internationally-approved moral guides? Then again, the most recognizable faces of the previous century all belonged to murderous maniacs and their differently-sizes mustaches. I suppose we’re still defined by murderous maniacs in the 21st century — the mustaches just seem to be missing, replaced with pasty clean-shaven faces or (increasingly) Islamic beards. Such a shame. The mustaches were the only good thing left.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

6 Comments

  1. When did avowed terrorists become mentors of youth? When did jungle guerillas become internationally-approved moral guides?

    When they won. Today they call themselves: “Manipulators of Procedural Outcomes”.

    1. They won a battle, but not the war.

      In this video, Fr Seraphim speaks about how Western faith has lost its heroes. Orthodoxy still has them, and draws stength from them.

      It needn’t stop there. Virtue and wisdom are far stronger than whatever artifice of a victory these Cathedral apologists may have built. It’s paper-thin. We can build something better. Something lasting.

  2. Not easy to find out what Byanyima’s income is, but I’m sure she is in the top 1% herself, really an upper fraction of 1% by the global level she misleadingly uses to stir up resentment in people who are actually doing fine

  3. Wealth concentration is a real problem. Not a problem that exists solely in the imagination of the leftist.

    Insufficient aggregate demand creates a real problem for currency circulation and wealth concentration. I understand a lot of folks have the tendency to reject all leftist ideas outright when they make their exodus from the cathedral but they are right about some things (even if for the wrong reasons).

    1. This is precisely why I prefer facts to “truth.” The problem with leftists is that they readily reject facts that aren’t immediately useful in supporting their “truth” (although they do keep those facts handy for the old motte and bailey game).

  4. Given what you’ve stated in this article, it shouldn’t be surprising that the stats Oxfam is using have been heavily criticized by some: http://www.iea.org.uk/node/9980

Comments are closed.