It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Appeasing Envy - Giving the Bullies What They Want - An Invitation to Revolution

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
While it may seem logical to some to attempt to mollify a group of bullies in the schoolyard by relinquishing their lunch boxes, there can be only one outcome to such a spineless and shortsighted abdication of one's right to one's property and dignity. The result is always continued and expanded demands.

I find it interesting that the current popular trend of bringing 'awareness' to bullying should come from the very same group of victims turned societal bullies.

What evidence is there in history of the success of this strategy of appeasement? None.

What examples are there of satisfaction as a result of such attempts at placation? None.

This road leads to revolution of the most horrendous ilk and nowhere else.



On Appeasing Envy



Any attempt to equalize wealth or income by forced redistribution must only tend to destroy wealth and income. Historically the best the would-be equalizers have ever succeeded in doing is to equalize downward. This has even been caustically described as their intention. “Your levellers,” said Samuel Johnson in the mid-eighteenth century, “wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves.”



There can be little doubt that many egalitarians are motivated at least partly by envy, while still others are motivated, not so much by any envy of their own, as by the fear of it in others, and the wish to appease or satisfy it. But the latter effort is bound to be futile. Almost no one is completely satisfied with his status in relation to his fellows.

In the envious the thirst for social advancement is insatiable. As soon as they have risen one rung in the social or economic ladder, their eyes are fixed upon the next. They envy those who are higher up, no matter by how little. In fact, they are more likely to envy their immediate friends or neighbors, who are just a little bit better off, than celebrities or millionaires who are incomparably better off. The position of the latter seems unattainable, but of the neighbor who has just a minimal advantage they are tempted to think: “I might almost be in his place.”



Envy is implacable. Concessions merely whet its appetite for more concessions. As Schoeck writes: “Man’s envy is at its most intense where all are almost equal; his calls for redistribution are loudest when there is virtually nothing to redistribute.”[3]

(We should, of course, always distinguish that merely negative envy which begrudges others their advantage from the positive ambition that leads men to active emulation, competition, and creative effort of their own.)



How to Bring On a Revolution

There are economists who will admit all this, but will answer that it is nonetheless politically necessary to impose such near-confiscatory taxes, or to enact similar redistributive measures, in order to placate the dissatisfied and the envious — in order, in fact, to prevent actual revolution.



This argument is the reverse of the truth. The effect of trying to appease envy is to provoke more of it.
The most popular theory of the French Revolution is that it came about because the economic condition of the masses was becoming worse and worse, while the king and the aristocracy remained completely blind to it. But de Tocqueville, one of the most penetrating social observers and historians of his or any other time, put forward an exactly opposite explanation. Let me state it first as summarized by an eminent French commentator in 1899:

Here is the theory invented by Tocqueville. … The lighter a yoke, the more it seems insupportable; what exasperates is not the crushing burden but the impediment; what inspires to revolt is not oppression but humiliation. The French of 1789 were incensed against the nobles because they were almost the equals of the nobles; it is the slight difference that can be appreciated, and what can be appreciated that counts. The eighteenth-century middle class was rich, in a position to fill almost any employment,almost as powerful as the nobility. It was exasperated by this “almost” and stimulated by the proximity of its goal; impatience is always provoked by the final strides.[4]



The expressions of sympathy that came from the privileged class only aggravated the situation:

The very men who had most to fear from the anger of the masses had no qualms about publicly condemning the gross injustice with which they had always been treated. They drew attention to the monstrous vices of the institutions which pressed most heavily on the common people and indulged in highly colored descriptions of the living conditions of the working class and the starvation wages it received. And thus by championing the cause of the underprivileged they made them acutely conscious of their wrongs.[6]

Tocqueville went on to quote at length from the mutual recriminations of the king, the nobles, and the parliament in blaming each other for the miseries of the people. To read them now is to get the uncanny feeling that they are plagiarizing the rhetoric of the limousine liberals of our own day.

All this does not mean that we should hesitate to take any measure truly calculated to relieve hardship and reduce poverty. What it does mean is that we should never take governmental measures merely for the purpose of trying to assuage the envious or appease the agitators, or to buy off a revolution. Such measures, betraying weakness and a guilty conscience, only lead to more far-reaching and even ruinous demands. A government that pays social blackmail will precipitate the very consequences that it fears.

edit on 4-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
How noble.
Conservatives never see the paradigm shift coming do they?

Even with slaves, the top 1% made about 10% of the income in the 1770's. Today we are at 20% and on a parabolic ascent. Where is this trend going? 50%, 80% 99%? I don't care about your values but I know this trajectory will annihilate lives, nations and most assets for that matter. It's already too late for the US to make a a material change in this function, so all I can do is laugh. It's all wrapped up --bought and paid for.

Ideologues will be the end of the human race. That outcome may be inevitable when most people value memes more than organic life.

The ultimate irony is pompously admiring your reflection in the sword as it pierces your body.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Envy of accomplishments may be bad and too envy of ones possessions.

But envy of opportunity shouldn't be considered bad.

Surfing, is as individual as one can get. You see a guy on this epic wave and you envy the wave not the guy or his board. Then if you see the same guy again on an epic wave you notice a pattern and attempt to copy it. All good, all fair.

The envy can lead to emulation and imitation in a flattering way. Or the former epic wave rider chooses to install a system whereas he is able to manipulate to where he is ensured epic waves by taking the opportunity for others to ride them.

Envy.. or if you are hungry and find out someone else has picked the forest clean in order to profit off of your hunger.

Tricky..



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
This is the hardest of all realities to face, it is not easy to accept the conclusions contained in these ideas.

You stand a much better chance of understanding them by reading the full article but, I can summarize.

The closer the middle class is to the upper class, the more vociferous is the call for egalitarianism. The final movements toward revolution are caused by simple impatience, not inequality.



Here is the theory invented by Tocqueville. … The lighter a yoke, the more it seems insupportable; what exasperates is not the crushing burden but the impediment; what inspires to revolt is not oppression but humiliation. The French of 1789 were incensed against the nobles because they were almost the equals of the nobles; it is the slight difference that can be appreciated, and what can be appreciated that counts. The eighteenth-century middle class was rich, in a position to fill almost any employment,almost as powerful as the nobility. It was exasperated by this “almost” and stimulated by the proximity of its goal; impatience is always provoked by the final strides.[4]


Does anyone think that Warren Buffett and his co-owners of the planet are threatened by a socialist takeover of America? They have all of our representatives in their pockets already with very few, if any, exceptions. The entirety of the federal government is occupied by the corrupt and self interested. There are those who think what we have is not a trend toward socialism because corporate cronyism is restraining that impetus. You are wrong, not only do we have a trend toward socialism but, it is specifically because of cronyism. Because of anti free market mercantilism and corporatism that wants nothing less than a planned economy that forbids competition.

What we need is to proscribe power, not grant more of it. To inhibit the expansion of the federal government, not facilitate it. Monopolies cannot compete in a truly free market without the threat of state violence to support it.

Not revolution, not insurrection, not socialism, not cronyism but a return to a bare minimum of government through peaceful, vigilant, informed and relentless relibertification through grassroots austerity.
edit on 4-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Middle class revolt? Don't make me laugh.

The only people with any business to be angry in the developed world, are the vast number of people in poverty who did not place themselves there, and are yet treated like dirt. The people with the reason to be angry are those working thirteen hour back to back shifts, just to make the rents on their appalling, mould ridden, code violating apartments. Those who lost their homes through no fault of their own, and lived in tent cities.... These people have the right to complain. They are not the middle classes.

The only people in any western society with a right to be furious right now, are those who are being forced into actual destitution, onto the streets, out of a job, or to work for nothing as some sort of punishment for being unemployed.

No one else's problems amount to jack diddly squat, because no one else's problems include where their next meal is coming from, whether they will ever have another one at all, how they are going to avoid sleeping in the car. Whining about lesser concerns than these is PATHETIC, and a past time not undertaken by anyone with an ounce of self respect.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

TrueBrit
reply to post by greencmp
 


Middle class revolt? Don't make me laugh.

The only people with any business to be angry in the developed world, are the vast number of people in poverty who did not place themselves there, and are yet treated like dirt. The people with the reason to be angry are those working thirteen hour back to back shifts, just to make the rents on their appalling, mould ridden, code violating apartments. Those who lost their homes through no fault of their own, and lived in tent cities.... These people have the right to complain. They are not the middle classes.

The only people in any western society with a right to be furious right now, are those who are being forced into actual destitution, onto the streets, out of a job, or to work for nothing as some sort of punishment for being unemployed.

No one else's problems amount to jack diddly squat, because no one else's problems include where their next meal is coming from, whether they will ever have another one at all, how they are going to avoid sleeping in the car. Whining about lesser concerns than these is PATHETIC, and a past time not undertaken by anyone with an ounce of self respect.

You do, of course, make my point for me. It is the poor and destitute who are in need of uplifting and assistance. The result of any and all attempts to 'equalize' to that end bring down the economic condition of the middle but, do not raise up the lower which is the very group the policies are intended to help (even if the popular narrative would lead you to believe the middle also benefits). The upper class is immune to the whole exercise and is empowered by increased state power which they yield with ever increased efficacy.

For the sake of clarification, what would you say is the dollar value range of each class? It would be helpful for everyone to come to some agreement on those quantities for measured comparative conclusions.

The upshot being that helping the poor is better achieved through voluntary personal charity than any authoritarian redistribution agenda. This is true even without considering the unavoidable totalitarian implementation that would be required to realize the actual ends which you pursue.

In my opinion, if the average middle class family will be forced to sacrifice 15% of their income under such a regime, that same amount of money could most likely be used far more effectively in direct assistance.

It is the promise that the state will 'take care of it' that discourages personal charity and does, perhaps, the greatest harm of all.

Finally, I wasn't thinking that you fit into this category at first but, considering your impassioned outspokenness on the subject, I am thinking that you are somewhat wealthy. Please forgive the assumption, it is not meant as an insult but, it fits with Tocqueville's assessment and would further strengthen the points made in the article.
edit on 5-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


While I would agree with you that it is not the middle that need the help right now, I cannot agree with your conclusions about the remedy. There are individuals who are literally hoarding money, for the sake of having it, people who spend the net worth of ten poverty stricken families, in under twenty four hours, just because they can. The gap between these demographics is getting wider, not smaller, and the reason for that is very simple, although some people, wether they have been indoctrinated to believe a falsehood, or use fallacy to escape their own conscience, would tell you otherwise.

Simply put, the poor are only poor, because those at the opposite end refuse to say, at some point, "I have all that I could ever want, and need earn no more". Some might tell you, that such a view of this situation is naive, or rooted in socialist wrong think, but to them I say, how many trillions of dollars are there in the country? Is the figure infinite, or limited? If it is limited, then surely, in order for someone who has nothing to gain something, that money must come from somewhere? If all the money is held by a minority, and everyone else is forced to fight for scraps, then what hope has society to improve itself?

People excuse the continuation of the torture of the powerless by the powerful, by dressing the issue in fancy terminology, attempting to soften the features of the predator society that grows under the status quo. But there is no honest way to excuse absorbing vast wealth, when hard working people, hands calloused from their toils can barely keep a substandard roof over their heads. There can be no righteous and virtuous land, no land of opportunity, if all the opportunity rests in the hands of a tiny minority.

Now, that does not mean that I believe that governments ought to take wealth from the rich, and redistribute that money according to their whims, because socialisms are always corrupted by politicians, either from the beginning of their inception, or later, after the ideal has been placed at the head of a society. It leads to dictatorships, draconian behaviour, murder on a huge scale, virtually every time, normally because the temptation to embezzle such funds as are gained from redistribution is massive, and people will excuse great sin, to avoid answering for a lesser one. Human beings have a propensity for weakness, especially where large sums of currency are concerned.

However, what I would say, is that it is foolish in the extreme to assume that the answer to poverty does not have anything to do with the vastly wealthy. Families NEED to eat,NEED to have shelter, heat, light, running water and food to eat, if their standard of living is to be maintained at an acceptable level. No one however, needs four times as much money as anyone could ever spend, and to sit upon that hoard like a serpent.

Further more, I am by no means a wealthy man. I live with my mother, in a two bed apartment, and have not a penny to my name. I have never driven a motor car, because I cannot afford the lessons, the road tax, the insurance, the petrol, or indeed, a car. If the work I do these days falls through, I will have nothing to fall back on. I have nothing in my bank accounts, and could not afford to get my identification updated to allow me to access them anyway.
edit on 5-10-2013 by TrueBrit because: Added detail, and an answer to a question.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

TrueBrit
reply to post by greencmp
 


While I would agree with you that it is not the middle that need the help right now, I cannot agree with your conclusions about the remedy. There are individuals who are literally hoarding money, for the sake of having it, people who spend the net worth of ten poverty stricken families, in under twenty four hours, just because they can. The gap between these demographics is getting wider, not smaller, and the reason for that is very simple, although some people, wether they have been indoctrinated to believe a falsehood, or use fallacy to escape their own conscience, would tell you otherwise.

Simply put, the poor are only poor, because those at the opposite end refuse to say, at some point, "I have all that I could ever want, and need earn no more". Some might tell you, that such a view of this situation is naive, or rooted in socialist wrong think, but to them I say, how many trillions of dollars are there in the country? Is the figure infinite, or limited? If it is limited, then surely, in order for someone who has nothing to gain something, that money must come from somewhere? If all the money is held by a minority, and everyone else is forced to fight for scraps, then what hope has society to improve itself?

People excuse the continuation of the torture of the powerless by the powerful, by dressing the issue in fancy terminology, attempting to soften the features of the predator society that grows under the status quo. But there is no honest way to excuse absorbing vast wealth, when hard working people, hands calloused from their toils can barely keep a substandard roof over their heads. There can be no righteous and virtuous land, no land of opportunity, if all the opportunity rests in the hands of a tiny minority.

Now, that does not mean that I believe that governments ought to take wealth from the rich, and redistribute that money according to their whims, because socialisms are always corrupted by politicians, either from the beginning of their inception, or later, after the ideal has been placed at the head of a society. It leads to dictatorships, draconian behaviour, murder on a huge scale, virtually every time, normally because the temptation to embezzle such funds as are gained from redistribution is massive, and people will excuse great sin, to avoid answering for a lesser one. Human beings have a propensity for weakness, especially where large sums of currency are concerned.

However, what I would say, is that it is foolish in the extreme to assume that the answer to poverty does not have anything to do with the vastly wealthy. Families NEED to eat,NEED to have shelter, heat, light, running water and food to eat, if their standard of living is to be maintained at an acceptable level. No one however, needs four times as much money as anyone could ever spend, and to sit upon that hoard like a serpent.

Further more, I am by no means a wealthy man. I live with my mother, in a two bed apartment, and have not a penny to my name. I have never driven a motor car, because I cannot afford the lessons, the road tax, the insurance, the petrol, or indeed, a car. If the work I do these days falls through, I will have nothing to fall back on. I have nothing in my bank accounts, and could not afford to get my identification updated to allow me to access them anyway.
edit on 5-10-2013 by TrueBrit because: Added detail, and an answer to a question.

The super wealthy are the pullers of strings and will always get control of any system. In the case of pure communism, a new elite is created that replaces the old (or changes their names). This is why I have concluded that individualism is the only solution, that is to say, absolute minimum of absolute power.

With respect to economic monopolies, this is a great point and a major problem without clear resolution for me. So far, true anti-trust action is the most reasonable course since it does not redistribute wealth so much as it subdivides influence. It is the only dramatic state action that I advocate and, while it is clearly an example of state interference, those monopolies relied upon and benefitted from state interference to attain their unnaturally overbearing influence. It is a corrective action for damage already sustained.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Better idea.

Become a corporation to beat a corporation.

or

Stop buying their products,indoctrination and services.

These two will have a more meaningful impact on real change to the current system.
A revolution would just shuffle the power structure and allow another power player to fill the vacuum.

Violence and force against the them legitimizes the authoritarian state. NAP and non-violent civil disobedience legitimizes the people and delegitimizes the authoritarian state.

They are not too powerful without our collectively making them so powerful by feeding them resources.
Don't like it stop enabling them.
edit on 6-2-2014 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 
Oh...the poor ole 1 percenters. My heart bleeds a river when i think how much they are gouged! How dare anyone complain the historical trends seen today in America in regards to the "distribution of wealth and services!" All who even think they have the right to expect more from their Democratic Republic Govt. is, as i'm sure you believe, ripping off the Elite. And, theoretically, are nothing more than "Useless Eaters" who are hindering your ability to die with the most toys. How dare them!

However, it's obvious you are a shill. The 1 percenters are basking in obscene wealth. Often their wealth is hidden away in secrecy, yet they complain it's not enough. They hate Govt. but love what Govt. does in aiding and abetting criminal behavior. You just witnessed the greatest theft of wealth in history, the latest theft from a long list of previous thefts of this caliber, and yet you don't seem to know how it threatens National Security.

I've seen a lot in my 56 years, and what used to be the greatest country has allowed itself to fade from it's splendor by a bunch of rogue traitors who in high office and positions sold our sovereignty to global interests. I've never seen worthy investigations, charges, trials and sentencing of those who feel they are above the law. The mere fact that Bush Sr. with his "New World" mantra with his cohort Ronny Reagan ( who was too stupid to realize his complacency ) opened the door for people like Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obammy to sign what they authored, NAFTA, GATT and the European, Central American and Asia Trade agreements and in doing so created the death nail to the American work force. We went from the "Isolationist mentality" to the clutches of the "New World Order" and the "UN Agenda 21."

The "Free Trade" practices where we granted "Preferred Trade Partners" status to everyones' brother, has caused the dismantling of the Middle Class and the working poor. They claimed this would create jobs that didn't exist and the "Trickle Down Economy" would save the Nation. And NitWits like you bought it hook, line and sinker. While you were drunk with the notion of you're own self worth, the house is burning and NEO-CONs' such as you are NOT present to man the hoses.

Add to all that, the CIA is flying drugs into America, so called terrorist are scheming to destroy our cities, NIS is monitoring your computer and telephone use, cameras are mounted on every intersection and NDAA gives the President the ability to kill Americans on American soil and your neighborhood will see drones with your name on it.

Do you get the big picture yet, or do i need to give more evidence? This may be hard for you, but try to tear yourself away from you're Nietzsche fallacies and man up. At least quit being so "simple" with a simple mind and apologize to those you offended. After all, you're silly musings won't save you in the big sphere of things.

As for me, I am too old and frail to do anything about it and i will break no laws. However, I will be God Damned and gone to hell before i relinquished my right to say my peace. And i will do so without "blaming" innocent poor folk who had nothing to do with the crimes we inherited.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The bullies are just going to take what they need if no one fixes this insane situation, and all the quoting and pontificating in the world won't prevent it from happening. Every empire falls the same way. The poor eat the neuvo-rich and drama queens rush to the front to "lead" until they get eaten too. The feeding continues until the poor start eating each other, as the uber-rich watch the whole thing from somewhere else, shake their fat heads, and pay someone to come up with a historical narrative that places the blame on someone else.

By then, they've already been infecting some other society with their diseased ideology, through sudden spikes in economic increase and strata clashes between relative lessers. They'll be good to go for another half-dozen generations or so. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm just glad that there's an afterlife for all humans, whether they want it or not. The fleeced and cheated finally get to have their access to these elite bastards then, and I would imagine that it gets really horrifying if you're forced to watch. Those folks who run things over there have their own way of dealing with macro-scale predation. heh heh
edit on 4/20/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

So, I have a question to you. What happens here?

This is the most basic of math. If I have 10 people and out of them, 2 earn $100/week, 3 earn $60/week, 2 more earn only $30/week and of the last three, 2 are not capable of earning for themselves and one just plain won't, but all three earn $0/week.

If average the top 5, the earn $76/week. If you seek equality for them, that's not bad.

If add in the next two down the ladder, you roughly $62.86/week. That's still not bad.

Now, let's get to the unproductive members of society. Now, two of these people are not productive through no fault of their own, and they absolutely deserve to be supported by the rest of society because that's what compassionate people do. But, let's take a look at what three unproductive people do.

You equalize everybody to reflect those 3 who make nothing, and you have 10 people who aren't even making $50/week. it's only $44. Those two who earn $100/week? How is that even fair to them? They lose more than half of what they earn in order for everyone to end up equal. Why should they even bother to try to earn money anymore?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
What a clever approach to the subject. So when someone is abused, it's not that they don't want to be abused, it's that they envy the superior position of the abuser, and if the abuse is ever ceased they will certainly pay it forward in spades, hence anyone who finds the social contract as practiced in America unjust is on his way to becoming Napoleon- nobody gets to be Martin Luther King until their safely six feet under and can't rock the boat any further?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
This is the hardest of all realities to face, it is not easy to accept the conclusions contained in these ideas.

You stand a much better chance of understanding them by reading the full article but, I can summarize.

The closer the middle class is to the upper class, the more vociferous is the call for egalitarianism. The final movements toward revolution are caused by simple impatience, not inequality.



Here is the theory invented by Tocqueville. … The lighter a yoke, the more it seems insupportable; what exasperates is not the crushing burden but the impediment; what inspires to revolt is not oppression but humiliation. The French of 1789 were incensed against the nobles because they were almost the equals of the nobles; it is the slight difference that can be appreciated, and what can be appreciated that counts. The eighteenth-century middle class was rich, in a position to fill almost any employment,almost as powerful as the nobility. It was exasperated by this “almost” and stimulated by the proximity of its goal; impatience is always provoked by the final strides.[4]


Does anyone think that Warren Buffett and his co-owners of the planet are threatened by a socialist takeover of America? They have all of our representatives in their pockets already with very few, if any, exceptions. The entirety of the federal government is occupied by the corrupt and self interested. There are those who think what we have is not a trend toward socialism because corporate cronyism is restraining that impetus. You are wrong, not only do we have a trend toward socialism but, it is specifically because of cronyism. Because of anti free market mercantilism and corporatism that wants nothing less than a planned economy that forbids competition.

What we need is to proscribe power, not grant more of it. To inhibit the expansion of the federal government, not facilitate it. Monopolies cannot compete in a truly free market without the threat of state violence to support it.

Not revolution, not insurrection, not socialism, not cronyism but a return to a bare minimum of government through peaceful, vigilant, informed and relentless relibertification through grassroots austerity.


The revolt has already started in so many small ways... I was talking to one of my golfing buds (have known him for over 40 years) and he was telling me that many of the guys he knows with money (call them the top 4% or 500,000$ a year types) have already given up on starting their new business enterprises in America. They are/have/going to/ start any new businesses off shore even in places you would never think would be a place for such a venture.. The primary reasons are U.S. government regulations and taxes; not cheap labor.

So you might say the revolt has already started several years ago and unfortunately I really do not see things getting better... Most of these guys have done business internationally so it really does not matter where they hang their business sign as long as the transportation and fabrication facilities are available for their products... I am just the messenger believe what you will...



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Yep, my husband is on the list for up and coming management where he works, and he has made it known that he will go where they need him to go even if it means moving overseas.

We'd rather remain successful than stay here where they kneecap you for being successful. The company will be moving people where the best opportunities for success are.

It pains us to say that, but right now his employer treats their valued employees better than this country treats its citizens and its economy.




top topics



 
11

log in

join