The War on Inequality continues its slow march to the margins of credibility with this latest piece from the economics angle.
â€œWe have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,â€ Brian Griffiths, who was a special adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said yesterday at a panel discussion at St. Paulâ€™s Cathedral in London. The panelâ€™s discussion topic was, â€œWhat is the place of morality in the marketplace?â€
Without inequality, there is nothing greater than ourselves to aspire toward, no direction, and therefore leaves us conditions for stagnation, which is eventually civilization death of a sort that creates Third World conditions.
Those who detest struggle and the possibility of overcoming and thus growth, which is Life’s process for betterment, are aligned with total social and economic equality. The uninspiring multiculture mediocrity and its total lack of pioneering anything in our times has been telling.
How contradictory that the same people demanding equal opportunity, which has fully transitioned now into railing against inequal outcomes, sell us their argument with the promise of everyone being able to “reach their full potential”. The new secular Christendom, which we now call Western Liberalism, is effectively a death cult.
â€œIt was the failed moral compass of bankers which was primarily responsible for why we had this crisis,â€ he said. â€œThe question is: what can we do in the culture of institutions to make them behave in a more socially responsible way?â€
He’s implying that people who work in finance are not all there for the same reasons: to put their skills to use working hard to make an honest living and be a positive component in our society. Some people in finance might be there to game the system until ruin, hoping to make off with the goods before the rubble stops bouncing and investigations begin.
But this does not mean that the struggle over egalitarianism is over. Far from it. On the contrary, after the New Left of the late 1960s and early ’70s had been discredited by its bizarre turn to violence, it took the advice of its liberal elders and “joined the system.” New Leftists launched a successful Gramscian “long march through the institutions,” and by becoming lawyers and academics â€” particularly in the humanities, philosophy, and the “soft” social sciences â€” they have managed to acquire hegemony over our culture. Seeing themselves defeated and routed on the strictly economic front (in contrast to the Old Left of the 1930s, Marxian economics and the labor theory of value was never the New Left’s strong suit), the Left turned to the allegedly moral high ground of egalitarianism.
We can read more into this to understand that notwithstanding centuries of Western Christendom, or numerous decades of Enlightenment, or several decades of humanist liberalism, no new arrangement of universal moral value systems expected from everyone is getting us as a whole any closer to unified or the envisioned world lacking struggle and conflict.
Many people do not belong in our midst in any capacity. They cannot be coaxed, educated, or jailed into conforming and functioning consistently well. They are not biologically wired to function as we do, as living cells supporting a thriving social body maintaining a civilization.
Tolerance removes the filter that otherwise kept these malfunctioning human carcinogens out of our social body. Mandatory equality, as we are finding, was never a cure for such cancers.