Peter Beresford keeps referring to the ever elusive, imaginary ‘we’ in his piece, which is a typical Grauniad screed against liberty and the spirit of man.
There is no ‘we’. Man is an individual, he is not the same as a cell in algae, or a telepathic race of aliens who share consciousness. Beresford and his ilk have no right to co-opt people into his sick collective by force. His position is nothing less than advocating slavery.
The so called overclass is able to be an overclass because people Beresford cannot think. They cannot use reason to find the true nature of anything outside themselves, and even of themselves. They cannot understand economics, which includes the true nature of money. If they could, the superclass would not cease to exist, but instead, would be proportionally and symbiotically buffered by the billions of consumers all asserting their natural rights equally.
Ideas like this, to the economic illiterates and the people who do not know what rights are, are simply incomprehensible. They do not have the knowledge or language to understand these ideas, and make no mistake, this lack of comprehension has been deliberately nurtured by government schools. This brainwashing is used to keep people in their place; what is so appalling is that the truth of how everything really works is there and has always been there for the taking in libraries and now on the internet at near zero cost.People today are suffering not because the rich are rich, but because they are stupid and ignorant. No matter how hard you try to inform them, they resist the truth. Its no wonder that a group of people have decided to act like predators; if people really are this stupid, even the educated ones, they deserve everything they get. Writers like Beresford are a typical example of the worst sort of sheeple; they are educated, but refuse to learn. They can read, but steadfastly refuse to absorb and reflect. They are fixed in their indefensible and irrational ideas, irrevocably wedded to them, and so they must expect little sympathy from the people who are awake and in charge.
The ‘overclass’ is not disproportionately powerful. They are as powerful as they can be, given the conditions under which they are living, surrounded by humans who are nothing more than biological androids. These androids do not understand what rights are, do not understand economics or even what a human being is. This is the true character of the problem Beresford is describing, but rather than try and address this, he is pouring all the blame on ‘the rich’. Its a textbook case of scapegoating.
As for commitment to traditional social values, this is exactly the sort of hogwash we expect from the dim witted writers at the Grauinad. They have no understanding of history. On the one hand, they decry the abandonment of traditional social values, but on the other, do everything they can to promote every aberrant idea that destroys and undermines those values. These people are truly confused, in a most profound and terrifying manner.
Once again, Beresford does not understand money and banking or the media, and the root cause of the problems coming from these areas. There is something common to both of these things; the State. It is the State that is the real problem behind every wrong in his ‘society’ and this is the crux of his problem; he is a Statist, with unflinching Stockholm Syndrome loyalty to it. The idea of the State being the root of the problem is literally unthinkable to these types.
He talks of morality, but cannot accept that his laundry list of problems, tax avoiding corporations; unaccountable asset stripping private equity companies; profiteers from the inordinately costly private finance initiative; corporate landlords imposing inflated rents funded by housing benefit; and outsourcing companies delivering poor value for money, are all the result of the State interfering in economics. This idea, as far as it is even thinkable by him is anathema. To Beresford, the State is the great arbiter, the ultimate benefactor, the dispenser of justice, the only thing that is immune from the law, and from logic.
As I said, they are truly sick.
These people cannot think for themselves, from first principles. This is why they trot out terms like ‘social justice’ which are shorthand, a sort of Grauniad slang for stealing. They are incapable of understanding the true nature of democracy, that vile and violent religion that runs roughshod and rampant over billions of lives, unquestioned and for the most part unchallenged. It is no wonder that they cannot get to the truth of anything; they are like the smallest doll in a Matroska, with the successive upper layers of the doll representing a set of solid delusions designed to keep them ignorant and locked in place.
There is no such thing as equal opportunity. Men are unequal by design. There is nothing wrong with this. The true question is how do people alleviate suffering? Do they do it by violence and theft, or do they do it from a basis of ethical human interaction? Beresford and his ilk choose the former. They are violent, justify violence and theft by the State to create their absurd unnatural, unbalanced world of ‘equality’ that could never arrive by itself in nature, and which pulls all men down to the gutter level of their sordid imaginations.
His idea is that GDP is somehow collectively owned, and should be dolled out proportionally. That there is such a thing as ‘funding’ which of course, is a euphemism for theft. He believes that national economies are simply the way things are, and that a corporation’s duty is to create jobs. Totally hypnotised and brainwashed.
Only at the end of this shabby and sad piece, does a small glimmer of understanding pass through the lumpy tar of sheer ignorance. There is an over lap, a perfect one, between the overclass and the government. They are in fact, one and the same group. This is to be expected. The solution however, is not to destroy the ‘rich’ but to dismantle the apparatus that so distorts, destroys and damages everyone – the State.
This is not however a new situation. These two groups have been in place for generations, and it is people like Beresford, who steadfastly refuse to get out of their comfortable box of delusions, that keep the system alive.
When he talks of contesting what he alleges is a new system of ‘the overclass’ and him and his fellow hypnotized Guarnaid readers, the piece stops. Why? What does he mean by ‘contest’? What shape would it take? What ideas does he have to replace the criminal and immoral system that he opposes but does not have the capability to define?
I put it to you that this man has no answers, because he is intellectually incapable of defining the problem. He doesn’t have the tools to attack this, his thinking is not grounded in sound ethics, and he does not have any understanding of the true nature of man, money and rights, which is the prerequisite to beginning the process.