Many of us who witnessed the NYC mayor's debate wondered how anyone could vote for the Democrat Communist Mamdani. Here's how.
1. Certainly every American wishes for equality before the law. But the text and the subtext of Democrat Communist success is based on equality of an exact similarity of material wealth or income, and it should be the goal of ‘social justice.’
And the Democrat promises of such are the second greatest lie that the Left tells, just look at the bankbooks of the Democrat officials who promist said equality.
2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87
3. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.
President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.
4. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179
5. . “Modern liberalism has corrupted the concept of ‘equality,’ and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism: equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it. That notion caused the prompt skewing of the non-discrimination laws by the bureaucrats and courts into whose care the implementation of the policy was given. Non-discrimination became discrimination, but against different people: white males. The new discrimination did not violate the tenets of radical egalitarianism, because modern liberals, who control these policies, do not think in terms of individuals but in terms of groups. Thus, proportional representation of groups in the workplace, on faculties, and in student bodies looks like non-discrimination to them. That is the rationale for affirmative action.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 79
For many, as the NYC election may very well prove, demanding that government give them what others have worked to earn, is the going price of their vote.
1. Certainly every American wishes for equality before the law. But the text and the subtext of Democrat Communist success is based on equality of an exact similarity of material wealth or income, and it should be the goal of ‘social justice.’
And the Democrat promises of such are the second greatest lie that the Left tells, just look at the bankbooks of the Democrat officials who promist said equality.
2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87
3. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.
President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.
4. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179
5. . “Modern liberalism has corrupted the concept of ‘equality,’ and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism: equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it. That notion caused the prompt skewing of the non-discrimination laws by the bureaucrats and courts into whose care the implementation of the policy was given. Non-discrimination became discrimination, but against different people: white males. The new discrimination did not violate the tenets of radical egalitarianism, because modern liberals, who control these policies, do not think in terms of individuals but in terms of groups. Thus, proportional representation of groups in the workplace, on faculties, and in student bodies looks like non-discrimination to them. That is the rationale for affirmative action.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 79
For many, as the NYC election may very well prove, demanding that government give them what others have worked to earn, is the going price of their vote.
