The Pathology of the Rich Socialist

American Thinker ^ | December 13, 2009 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

People such as George Soros and Michael Moore certainly talk a good game, but the next Mother Teresa they are not. Mother Teresa never criticized the free-market system; wealth just wasn't for her. Soros and Moore are quite the opposite. They will never take a vow of poverty and dedicate themselves to helping the poor. They just want our civilization to take a vow of poverty and become poor.

This has caused many to wonder: How can someone preach socialism while being the most rapacious "capitalist" imaginable? Well, I have a theory about this.

It has often been observed that those who preach liberalism the most practice charity the least, and research bears this out. For example, in a piece titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," self-proclaimed liberal Nicholas Kristof wrote,

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Then there is a fascinating article by Peter Schweizer, titled "Don't listen to the liberals -- Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows." In defense of this thesis, the author presents some scientific findings and then a bit of anecdotal evidence, writing, "Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers."

Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."

You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. "He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known -- and that's saying a lot," claims Urbanski.

The article also cites one Linda Hirshman, who "tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises."

Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy. This finding should come as no surprise, despite liberals' propensity to rail against the rich and preach redistribution of wealth. Because, you see, it's not that they care about the downtrodden so much -- it's just that they're just insanely jealous of those who have more than they do.

But what about advocating socialism? Why would these greedy leftists try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they crave? To understand this, we have to delve into the psychology of vice.

There is a chasm between the heart and head. It is one thing to know something is wrong; it's quite another to feel it on an emotional level. This is probably why Confucius once said (I'm paraphrasing), "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." The heart is both a terrible master and a terribly alluring one, as its fires so often trump the head's cool logic. It is the demagogue of the mind's elections, whose rhetoric is hard to resist because it just feels so right.

Now, let's talk about that seemingly greedy man, George Soros. As a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Nazi-occupied Budapest, Hungary in 1944, he posed as the godson of a government official who had been bribed to protect him. Soros then accompanied his protector while the man would make his rounds confiscating property from Jews who were being shipped off to death camps. During a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros said he felt no guilt over this and explained why, stating, "Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."

It's just like in markets...that's an interesting comment. But what is this similarity of which Soros speaks? Is it just that by his lights, in both situations he had to choose between being the predator and the prey? Well, read two more statements Soros made in the interview. When asked about his mercenary currency trading, he said, "I don't feel guilty. Because I'm engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt."

An amoral activity or an amoral man?

And when asked whether he deserved the blame for various nations' financial collapses, he replied, "I am basically there to -- to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of -- of what I do."

No, but he sure looked at the social consequences of what George Bush (whom he called a Nazi in his book) did. But I digress.

It's clear that Soros sees our free-market system as an evil, much like the Nazi system whose death camps he eluded. And I wouldn't be surprised if, just as when he was 14, Soros sees himself as a victim caught in its web (the difference is that in 1944, he actually was a victim, whereas now he is the spider). If he doesn't rape the system, someone else will. Yet he is a victim only of his own greed.

Taking this a bit deeper, it's much like someone in the grip of any vice. It's like a man who just cannot resist the bottle and gets falling-down drunk. He may sometimes have moments of clarity during which he actually hates his vice -- and he may start to hate alcohol itself. At these times he may wish it didn't exist, for then the temptation wouldn't be there. But as long as it does exist, he can't help but partake. 

George Soros is a greedy man. Because of this, he cannot be "free" of his vice until the opportunity to make money is gone. He cannot retire, cannot rest, as long as there is another dollar to be made in the evil system. He wishes his "bottle" didn't exist, but as long as it does, he can't help but partake. Thus does he want Profit Prohibition.

This should surprise no one.  I once heard of a woman who was told by her Leftist college professor not to give money to charity because it was the government's job. But you see, to liberals, everything is little g's job -- and also its responsibility. In just the way a criminal isn't responsible for his actions because "society made him the way he is," Leftists want the government to fight their temptations for them, and they see a free-market society as being one big occasion of sin. The message is simple: It's not my fault if the government places us in a situation in which we can be immoral. Just as liberals outsource their charitable responsibilities, they outsource their moral ones.

The problem is that it doesn't work. There will always be "the other side" and those "from whom the thing is being taken away." There will always be an "evil system." In communist governments, those in power -- who are more equal than others -- get the new Mercedes, the plush apartment, the fine food, and all the other luxuries any commissar could want. And the George Soroses of the world would always try to be among them, for greed still lay in their hearts. And it wouldn't be hard for them to rationalize, either. They would simply reason, "If I'm not more equal than others, someone else will be. If I don't do it, someone else will."

Contact Selwyn Duke

[Scotsman will be Free]

Correct. I also believe that the hollyweirdoes feel guilt over making so much money by pretending to be people who have actually done something. To assauge that guilt they try to give our money away.

[Hardastarboard]

Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.

I don't put political stickers on my car so that it doesn't get keyed. I would never bother a liberal's car that was plastered with 0bama stickers, but I know good and well that if I put an anti-0bama sticker on mine, it will get keyed, and it won't be Sarah Palin supporters that did it.

"Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers."

Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."

The statements above remind me so much of the "Ferengi rules of acquisition" (from one of the Star Trek spin offs). Look it up and see what I mean.

[MarkL]

Bump 4 L8TR

[nathanbedford]

It is Sunday afternoon here in Germany with a couple of inches of snow on the ground and I am killing time waiting for my wife to come home from Munich by watching Sam Tannenhaus, author of the great biography of Whittaker Chambers, hold forth for an hour and eight minutes about why the conservative movement is dead apart from last gasps in the theatrics of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and why Barack Obama is so gifted-but not ideological, in fact, Barack Obama is conservative in the true sense of the word.

I just listened to Tannenhaus describe Sarah Palin as a "trailer trash version of feminism", a figure most "similar to Joseph McCarthy."

http://fora.tv/2009/10/20/Sam_Tanenhaus_The_Death_of_Conservatism

It is indeed a parallel universe.

[Reeses]

Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy.

This is the root motivation of leftism. Some things to understand:

Envy is not about having what someone else has, but destroying what they have. This is more evil than thievery because it destroys America's wealth rather than redistributes who has it. Envy is usually the root cause of war and murder.

Greed is just an extreme form of envy. They are the same motivation. Most greedy people are leftists.

Rich leftists are motivated by envy deflection, not guilt. It's a strategy to keep their wealth. Guilt is a cover word.

Envy is partly a function of population density. People that live in cities see others with more wealth and status than they have more frequently so have more frequent feelings of envy. Living in an ant-hill is not natural for humans.

Michael Moore is a purveyor of envy-porn. He's doing a service by providing a release for those with an envy problem while separating them from their money.

[Just mythoughts]

Liberals are a jaded bunch, and in my opinion born that way. Liberals are feudalistic at heart, they lust after capital, and spend their every waking moment designing powers to be that become their own personal spigots to provide them their earthly stashes. They are a miserable lot and care not what their end will be. Sad part for them is they will not take one thin dime with them when they depart their flesh vessels.

[thile44]

Liberals are just weak POSs that espouse the mantra of liberalism to enrich themselves without guilt, They always want charity to be given to those who need it just not their charity.

[Just mythoughts]

Liberals are just weak POSs that espouse the mantra of liberalism to enrich themselves without guilt, They always want charity to be given to those who need it just not their charity.

Ah but liberals strength is found in numbers. They know better than any other mindset instinctively how to build a crowd. The liberal mind is all about them self, and how to feed their over estimated self importance. They are mentally still a two year old that discovers which personality to use to get what they want. The liberal will claim to be an advocate for the poor and downtrodden, but their motivation is to keep people in the poor as that is where their power is derived. Where would they be if nobody needed them?

[chesley]

An interesting theory that may have some truth to it, My own is that they wish to have power, in addition to all their wealth,

And what does power consist of but forcing people to eat their spinach? Whether it’s good for them or not.

[Oratam]

Libs outsource their charity to government by being loyal Dem voters. Step over the homeless on the way to work? Vote Democrat to expand entitlement programs? Cheat on your wife? Vote Democrat to convince yourself you’re a defender of women’s rights? Think blacks really don’t have what it takes to make it? Vote Democrat to provide a raft of social programs when affirmative action isn’t enough. In short, voting Democrat assuages a very guilty conscience.

[upcountryhorseman]

Partly guilt for being rich and the desire for power over others.

[Luke21]

I like the way you put it. Liberals are a vapid, faithless, bunch of two year old totalitarians projecting their psychoses onto those they disagree with. To watch CNN and its daily brainwashing shows the epitome of lunacy. But this is how Soros and his minions retain power. As Nathan said, conservatism is all but dead. And electing politically correct Republicans will do very little to pull us back from the abyss.

[ripley]

In the U.S. Congress there is a majority with one frame of mind; psyhosis.

IMHO

[razorback-bert]

bookmark

[DPMD]

Dictators, right or left, are all of a single kind: They are simply thieves. With power.

To support a dictator, as leftists are fond of doing, one identifies with a thief.

So, to follow the money in the case of dictator-supporting “socialists” like the bloated one or the Hungarian nazi, is to discover theft somewhere in the woodpile, and certainly financial mendacity on a large scale.

[Paine in the Neck]

bump to read later

[kittykat77]

As far as can be determined, Soros and Moore have never taken a vow of poverty. Mother Teresa did.

[calex59]

You miss the point. The point of the statement was that Mother Teresa never bad mouthed capitalism even though she had taken a vow of poverty. Moore and Soros bad mouth capitalism constantly but yet do every thing they can to make money using capitalism. If you can’t see what the author was saying is the same as your statements, then I feel sorry for you.

[kittykat77]

One question: Was Mother Teresa apolitical?

[PapaBear3625]

I have a simpler explanation: after a while, rich people get a bunch of connections with government officials. They go to fundraisers, they shmooze, they have somebody to go to when they have "problems" with some bureaucrat.

Their connections are valuable. And they become more valuable when government expands.

The attraction of a planned economy to such people is that they imagine that they will be among the planners.