|
Too much money makes people into crazy leftists
Bill Gates has turned into the Jed Stearns heirs in Atlas Shrugged, who turn their father’s factory, the Twentieth Century Motor Company, into a totalitarian Marxist nightmare where the governing rule is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This is reported at Fox:
Bill Gates Unleashes Swarm of Mosquitoes on Crowd“There is no reason only poor people should be infected.” But the whole idea of civilization is to deliver people from such things as malaria. Gates is clearly stating that as long as there are any poor or civilizationally backward people anywhere, as long as there are countries anywhere that have not attained the level of knowledge and organization needed to eliminate such problems as malaria, then we should all be poor, we should all have malaria, we should all be without civilization. In other words, as long as we’re not all equal, we should be made equal at the lowest level. The conclusion is inescapable from Gates’s remark. If it’s true that “there is no reason only poor people should be infected,” then it’s also true that there is no reason why only poor people should be poor. If Gates believes his own principle, he should not just release mosquitos on himself and his rich friends, he should instantly hand over all his billions to the wretched of the earth.
Mary B. writes:
If my memory serves me well, wasn’t it a leftist agenda that led to the banning of DDT, the pesticide that had successfully eliminated the malaria spreading mosquitoes? Wasn’t Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” instrumental in this ban all for the sake of saving birds?LA replies:
If my memory is correct, you’re right.Ed writes:
Gates and Warren Buffet intend to hand over their Billions to the wretched of the earth. They have combined to fund 60 billion dollars for the purpose of saving africa from aids and poverty. Buffet purchased an Israeli company because of it’s excellence but neither he nor Gates will contribute a single penny to higher education in Israel because they are already doing well. Their principle is to reward failure, chaos, low I.Q and punish people who are making a contribution to human progress. This is the proverbial “Inversion of values”.Paul T. writes:
If these were truly malaria-carrying mosquitoes, then Gates has committed an act of terrorism; if they were not, but he said they were, then it’s still either terrorism or something close to it. There’s also an element of blackmail—“hand over your money to my foundation or I’ll expose you to the risk of infection”. We can expect to see a lot more of this sort of behaviour from various self-proclaimed Armies of the Righteous.P. writes:
Here’s my reading of your acronym: Presiding Over Redistribution Called Urgent Liquidity, Ultimate Stimulus.Bruce B. writes:
Boy if that’s not evidence that leftism is a religion then what is?Donna E. writes:
Amen to that!Hannon writes:
You have to hand it to Gates for emphasizing malaria in his philanthropic work. Since it is by far the leading disease of death in the equatorial zone, abating it will have the effect of allowing millions more to suffer in poverty and strife. In other words, more equality.Gintas writes:
Yet another good reason (among many) to loathe Gates. And the audience was mostly crazy leftists, so they deserve each other. Who goes to a technical conference to hear a soulless-but-“caring” technocratic visionary but other soulless technocrats trying hard to “care”? Gates hasn’t been technical since the 80s, he’s just working the brains of his audience with his visions of a future Utopian Technopoly. These are the kind of people who think “one laptop per child” is real philanthropy.Maureen C. writes:
Your acute reasoning exposed the underlying hypocritical contradiction of Gates’ releasing malarial mosquities (his willingness to make others suffer, while failing to follow through and completely empty his own purse to the poor). But in exposing the subtle, you missed the obvious. Gates’ releasing even “alleged” malarial mosquitoes into the room was a terrorist act, equivalent to sending harmless white powder (without anthrax) to government officials and journalists. Evidently, one of the reasons liberals can’t fight terrorism is that, at heart, they sympathize with terrorist methods.Barbara writes:
Hear! Hear! That, Larry, is the main difference between the Socialists and ….. how do we call ourselves???LA replies:
What is the main difference?Barbara replies:
Gates’ mentality vs. yours: “But the whole idea of civilization is to deliver people from such things as malaria….” Ach! Perhaps you’ve provided the answer to my question of how we call ourselves: Civilized? (Perhaps I’d better just call it a day!)LA replies:
Of course. We believe in civilization. Can liberals say that? Do even today’s “conservatives” say that? No, they don’t speak of civilization. Because that means something concrete and particular (namely, OUR civilization), something with standards, and so it instantly runs into conflict with liberalism, which no one in Western public life opposes. Under liberalism, there are only two classes of things that are legitimate: universal abstractions pertaining to equality, freedom, rights, diversity, inclusion, etc.; and personal and material needs. Liberalism does not permit the recognition of any concrete whole larger than the individual. Thus it does not recognize civilization. Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 05, 2009 09:34 AM | Send Email entry |