A Dialogue on The Politics of Envy

GBlagg: I have a question...
Sticks and Stones: Very well. Let’s hear it.
GBlagg: With all the armed conflict existing throughout the world at present, I began to wonder...what is the root cause of war?
S&S: Ah, war, there is a monumental issue...
GBlagg: Yes, ok, but what is it that at its most basic level is the cause of military conflict?
S&S: Well, my first thought, my emotion, tells me it is hatred and anger.
GBlagg: That would seem to be true, but are not ‘hatred’ and ‘anger’ secondary qualities? Do they, themselves, not stem from something other?
S&S: Yes, you are correct. They, in fact, do. So there is another step we must take, past these two issues to a deeper issue.
GBlagg: I’m listening...
S&S: First let me ask you a question.
GBlagg: Go on.
S&S: If one country or state is attacked by another and retaliates, is the retaliation the root cause of the war?
GBlagg: Of course not. The root cause must be located in the reasons for the original attack.
S&S: You have some background in history. What in your experience causes one country or state to attack another?
GBlagg: It is almost always for land, or resources, or status.
S&S: Yes. So the root cause then is what?
GBlagg: Ah. The root cause is need, jealousy. No wait...it is ‘envy’.
S&S: Yes. Envy. At its most basic of levels, war is mostly fought because of ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’.
GBlagg: Yes, I see. It is for the ‘envy’ of territory and resources. But can it not be for the ‘envy’ of people as well?
S&S: Surely. People are a resource in a sense, are they not?
GBlagg: Yes, as slaves or as a work force. And beyond that even as an ideology.
S&S: Yes, the ‘envy’ of the mind. Which leads us to what?
GBlagg: Control. Control of the mind. Possession of the mental resources. Ideas,or opinions, or religion. Control.
S&S: Yes, of course, always control.
GBlagg: This idea of ‘envy’ has me thinking down another line if inquiry...
S&S: Go on.
GBlagg: It is obvious to any who watch the political arena in America that the Left largely deal in ‘the politics of envy’. They pit the rich against the poor. The idle against the productive. As you yourself have stated, “‘the haves’ against the ‘have nots’”.
S&S: Yes, this is obvious.
GBlagg: They preach as to how the rich are all evil. That the only way the wealthy became rich in the first place is off the shoulders of the poor...
S&S: This we call the ‘zero sum’ mentality.
Gblagg: ‘Zero sum’ mentality? Explain.
S&S: It is the theory that one man’s gain must be equally balanced by another man’s loss. That when you add up the total gains of one party and subtract the total losses of the other then they will sum to zero.
GBlagg: Exactly. But this theory ignores the sacrifices of the producer. The sacrifices of time, money, personal life, and a thousand others. And it ignores the benefit the producer adds to society, as well. Through jobs, tax dollars, and investments.
S&S: I did not say that I was in agreement with the theory, only that it exists.
GBlagg: Yes, but I would wish to get back to my point. The left pits ‘the haves’ against ‘the have nots’. Is this not by definition advocating ‘envy’?
S&S: This would seem to be true.
GBlagg: And do we not agree it is ‘envy’ that is the root cause of most war?
S&S: Yes, this is true.
GBlagg: Then there is something I just can’t get my mind around. Are the Left not the party of ‘peace’? Are they not the anti-war party?
S&S: As they are presently constituted, yes.
GBlagg: So ‘envy’ is the root of war, and the Left preaches ‘envy’. Then when there is war, they preach ‘peace’. That is too funny.
S&S: As you say.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes