Dear Friends,
It seems to me, socialism is not, and never has been about empathy, but has always been about envy. George Orwell knew this truth all too well by his close association with socialists in his day. One thing is self evident, that is, philosophies based on bad intent… must be malevolent. Since socialism is based on envy, “bad intent,” it must be malevolent. As predicted, history shows unequivocally, that socialism is always malevolent to some portion of the population. Self aware socialists know their own hearts, and the malice that fuels their socialism, but most are not self aware, and let the malevolence of envy drive them, as they lie to themselves, that they have empathy for the little guy… even as they despise the poor. This is why socialism is both pernicious and evil.
It is pretty easy to prove that progressives despise the very people they claim to be in support of. For one, people who identify as progressives give very little to charity, while people who identify as conservatives, give far more to charity. Which correlates very well with empathy. Moreover, is it empathetic care for someone to trap the poor and their children, in a cycle of poverty? Progressives seem to think so. While libertarians and conservatives seek to allow the poor to rise to the top of their potential, leaving poverty, socialists of all stripes, progressives, Nazis, European conservatives, Marxists, democratic socialists, etc… need to keep the poor, hungry, angry and violent, so they can create more poor, and thus reliable socialist voters and soldiers.
Have you ever noticed, every government program that has ever existed, actually does the exact opposite of what it was intended? Those that actually work are both a rarity because it could lead to the elimination of that program. There is one thing government programs seek above all else… immortality. Obama, the noted socialist former President, eliminated the welfare to work program, that was responsible for getting so many people off the dole and into a job. He eliminated it by fiat because it was getting people out of the cycle of poverty. It actually worked and so had to go. Clinton had only agreed to it as a political expedient to Gingrich and the republican controlled House anyway. Think about it, if any immortal government program worked, wouldn’t that, by definition, lead to it’s ending?
Democrats, especially now that old party is captured by radical Marxists, globalists and post modernist progressives, have always professed a love for the poor, while at the same time avoiding ever touching the unclean masses. How many socialists do you see hanging out with the poor, unless it is to whip them into a voting bloc, or a Marxist revolution? You don’t, because the poor are tools for getting at the people they envy, not to hang out with. Like Rousseau. He partied with the elite in Paris while despising them, and most probably himself as well, all the time. Progressives like to hang out with the beautiful people. As in Animal Farm, the Pigs moved into the house, slept in the beds and hung out with humans… not the animals. Socialists are the modern versions of the Pharisees.
If socialists allowed capitalism to eliminate poverty, what need would there be for socialists? That is why, progressives drive government to do everything in it’s power, to increase the number of poor people. Unlimited immigration of people from the third world is one way. It both increases the gross number of the poor, and lowers wages for natives, driving millions from middle class to lower class, plus driving up the total demand for welfare. Not to mention the chaos. All of which builds a reliable voter base. Just as government programs out of self interest, must make the problem they are tasked with fixing worse, while appearing to try to make it better, Socialists of all colors, pretend to love the poor, as a political necessity… so they can exact revenge on those they envy.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
