Our Israeli correspondent MC sends these thoughts on the cultural (and moral) foundations of wealth-creation.
The poor are always with us…
…But it is the arrogant who are the real enemy
Most Islamic countries are poor. They are poor because their religion is a religion of poverty, based as it is on a system where every nuance of a person’s life is dictated by somebody else, thus imprisoning a person’s free will. Even Saudi Arabia with all its wealth in the cities has a real problem with poverty outside the cities.
Most communist countries are riddled with poverty, too. Communism does not encourage wealth-creation except as graft and exploitation amongst its elites. Communism, too, imprisons free will.
Innovation is a prime product of free will, and it is the ability to innovate that generates wealth and civilization. Countries can create their own essences of civilization and export them, others can be gross importers of civilization if, and only if, they have the ability to buy into civilization, otherwise they too are poor and backwards.
Gaza, for example, buys into limited civilization by exporting and exploiting a victimhood culture which plays on the heartstrings of the West to such an extent that the West then exports the bounty of its own civilization to expiate a ‘guilt’ that it perceives when duped by the illusions of abject poverty and victimhood portrayed by the media’s white-guilt propaganda.
But guilt money does not relieve the cause of any of the poverty, especially when the cause of that poverty is Islam or socialism.
The Gulf states have oil. So do the USA and Russia, but the Gulf stuff is cheap and plentiful. So Islam has a rich uncle who can buy influence. Saudi Arabia is like a spider sitting at the centre of a web of intrigue: Islamic intrigue, the intrigue of the wealthy barbarian.
If the West has a vulnerability, it is its denial of its own culture; its denial that the Judeo-Christian basis of the West is superior because it allows the individual the free will to innovate. When one denies the cultural basis of the West’s success, one becomes vulnerable to having one’s behaviour coerced, and in the case in question, coerced by bribery. Saudi Arabia has found that it can use its oil revenue to buy a place in the West’s cultural sunshine. Not only that, it can use its wealth to have the civilization upon which it depends slaughtered as unbelievers — as Islam demands.
Western cultural nuances are ubiquitous across the world, and many have adopted the products of Western culture: phones, bicycles, televisions, tee-shirts, shoes, cars, buses; the list is endless. This is amazing flattery if, we would just be humble enough to stop and think about it. No other culture has contributed anything close to it.
But Marxism has effectively destroyed Christianity. When one can see a Pope actively working a communist manifesto, then one must assume that Christianity is in its death throes. Whether or not the revolutionary theology that the current Pope has brought with him from South America is KGB-inspired is difficult to determine, and the truth may only come out when it is ancient history.
Accepting a bribe is contrary to Judeo-Christian mores, and due to its political nature, to be bribed to accommodate Islamic evangelism (Dawa) is tantamount to treason. When governments start doing irrational things, one must start looking for malicious influences. One can see this in the passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, when a goodly proportion of the House and Senate were accepting ‘donations’ from the supporters of the act.
Likewise, we can see the influence of Saudi money in European universities. It is not unique for a university that has accepted large donations of Islamic money to become anti-Semitic in its stance.
In any religion or political religion where the ends justify the means, bribery, and the resulting corruption can be whitewashed, despite their negative effects on society at large.
Bribery short-circuits the process of wealth generation; to gain the due rewards of innovation one must be able to compete in a free market.
A child from a poor family does well at school. A knowledgeable teacher, a mentor, enters that child for a scholarship to an excellent higher school. A mediocre child from a moderately wealthy family also takes the exam for the scholarship. The father of the latter student obtains a copy of the exam in advance by bribery and has his child specially coached.
One can imagine the result. Now it was the father of the mediocre child who took the initiative, even if it was immoral, and it is this immorality that we must examine.
So the poor child is denied the opportunity for development, and the chances are that this child will struggle for the whole of his life just to survive and never have time to put his greater innovative ability to any use. The mediocre child already has opportunities galore, but because he lacks the talent to be innovative, he just continues in the meme of that mediocrity.
In a moral society the bribery would eventually be exposed, in this case because the subsequent poor performance of the mediocre child would show, and the situation could be corrected. However, in a situation where moral relativity is practised, the father’s efforts on behalf of his child would be applauded as the natural thing to do to get ahead, despite the injury to society through the loss of the real talent.
One of the interesting differences between Russian communism and German nazism is that the latter was highly innovative, whereas the former was not, except in the rather dubious areas of espionage — and in mass murder, of course.
If innovation is the driver of civilization, then our leaders must do their utmost to create an atmosphere where innovation can thrive. It is a golden goose which must be carefully nurtured.
To allow communism to destroy morality, and to allow Islam to invade and spoil innovation, is to kill this golden goose. So the poor will always be with us.
It is not that the poor are not innovative; it is more a matter of opportunity. There was a time in England where a boy from the poorest of families could go to the finest schools in the country, or, like me, could attend the local grammar school and still get a very fine education and the subsequent boost to innovation. My grandfather was a coal miner; he started in the pits as a child (about 13), but he got all his sons through grammar school and his youngest son through university as an electrical engineer.
My father’s education was interrupted by the war. He went into the Royal Navy and spent much of the war at Manchester University working on new radar systems.
It was a time when there was some equality of opportunity.
The door was slammed on these opportunities by the British Labour party, which had grabbed the communist religious tenet that we are all ‘equal’ and that one size must fit all in the name of that ‘divinely’-inspired equality. And it is this very same ideal that drives the current immigration mayhem. The grammar schools were mostly disbanded because the (private-school-educated) Labour bigwigs saw them as a ‘middle class enclave’ ensuring that the ‘working’ class remained ‘poor’.
I suspect that this was a lie, and I suspect that it was one of the early religious outworkings of cultural Marxist belief and religion, but this can be disputed.
So when the ‘working class’ failed to respond and submit to the worship of their wealthy champagne socialist betters, those scions of Britain’s elite embarked upon bashing what they defined as ‘white supremacy’ — the idea being that the Western European dominance in world culture was unfair and based upon exploitation, rather than innovation. Essentially that it was the exploited brown people who did all the work and wealth-creation, and that now, as a result, they deserve a major part of the rewards thereof. In exactly the same way that socialists destroyed the working class pathway to betterment by closing the grammar schools, these (politically) religious extremists are now waging cultural warfare against their own countries and people by allowing the Islamic hordes free entry, and also by allowing them to bring their destructive religion with them, unchecked in any way, even to the extent of locking up any who express their dissent.
In doing this they are enshrining poverty as part of the system, poverty through the burden of taxation and the redistribution of wealth to support parasites; poverty because the education system is overburdened by having to teach English/French/Swedish to immigrant children, poverty because of competition for low-end jobs and housing. Poverty from the terror that comes from importing the rabid wolves of a 7th-century culture into the sheepfold of disarmed 21st-century polite society.
Is it that I need to impose my religious beliefs on other people by force? Do I need to impose my beliefs on other people by deception? Is the arrival more important than the Journey?
The Apostle Paul spoke about being a ‘follower of the Way’, and Yahushua tells us that He is the Way the Truth and the Life. Isaiah tells us the we, like sheep, have gone astray; we’ve turned everyone to his own way. In both communism and Islam the Journey, the way, is unimportant. It is at the journey’s end that we are justified; how it is reached is unimportant. If one has to murder and lie and cheat and steal then it is all justified by the expectation of success. And that is why they are both religions of poverty, because along the way the golden goose is killed, or so impoverished as to be incapable of initiative, and where there is no innovation there is nothing to create wealth.
Whilst some religions teach a voluntary humility which enables adherents to listen and learn, and to self-improve, the dual religions of Islam and Socialism teach only submission, and instil an arrogance arising from the failure of a submitting one to stop and think for himself, a blinkered approach where all of life is pre-defined and organized by the elite (or Allah), from each servitude, to each oversight, and nothing left for individualism and creativity. The result: slavery, malignance and violence, mayhem and murder. This is the inherent weakness of these systems: that they kill those who are different, so mediocrity rules and people starve.
- Acts 24:14
- John 14:6
- Isaiah 53:6-8
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.