Do The Rich Help The Poor Without An Agenda?

Do The Rich Help The Poor Without An Agenda?

Ah, class warfare. Is there anything more intrinsic to human society? Probably famine, disease, and actual war. But since the earliest times of human civilization, there has been an ongoing struggle between the haves and the have not's.

Those of you who don't remember anything before the 2000's might not realize how common angst between the rich and the poor is. France was pretty much destroyed thanks to it. Communism took root in the West thanks to the poor working class Bolsheviks overthrowing Russian society (and killing innocent children, something they don't like to mention).

It's a timeless struggle. Those who suffer lack, or perceived lack, will always harbor resentment towards those they believe have it easy. Throughout history we've seen the unwashed masses of poor and working classes reach a breaking point, lashing out against their rich, corrupt oppressors.

But then we have the United States, a country founded by common people. Oh, you may not think those old guys with the wigs were common, but compared to the rich nobility of England and Europe, they were bagmen. The United States was strategically designed to ensure every person was granted equal rights. We've even been through periods of reform to make that a certainty. Unlike many other nations, our society was constructed so that even the lowliest of people could rise up and achieve great things.

I don't have to list the many rags to riches success stories of Americans. The story of Steve Jobs tinkering in his garage, needing his parents to help build his first computers, to eventually leading two major world-changing companies, is a common refrain in this country. Stories like that have inspired countless people to shoot for their dreams believing that in America, with a lot of hard work and sacrifice, you can have it all.

That has not been true for most of human history and, in many nations today, that's still a fantasy. But even in the United States, we have people born with silver spoons in their mouths (meaning they're rich) and people who suffer.

Sadly, that will never go away. But the one thing that can go far in making sure more and more people have the opportunity to enjoy healthy, prosperous lives is to provide every opportunity for them to succeed. Be it education, economic opportunity, or individual rights, in the West, we have ample protections to ensure that even the lowest among us have a chance.

So why does it seem like the rich are depriving other countries of the same opportunity?

A growing trend among the super rich and elite of the West is to infiltrate developing countries (i.e.: poor places) and impose on them restrictions that prevent them from thriving. This often means depriving these people of the very solutions that have helped the West grow into such a successful region.

It sounds ironic and counterproductive. Because it is. It seems global initiatives to "save the world" from such things as climate change go hand in hand with suppressing the third world. These rich advocates conveniently ignore the fact that they were able to thrive because of solutions they deny others.

Could it be that they truly don't want these nations to succeed? Are we seeing a new age of imperial oppression?

It's very hard to say, but yes we are.

Former Vice President Al Gore has taken to the op-ed pages once again to criticize arguments that getting off of coal-fired electricity will harm the world’s poor because it is cheap. Gore says poor people don’t need coal power, they need solar panels...

Many developmental economists have argued that despite the global warming impacts of coal power, it’s a cheap, reliable source of electricity that can quickly lift people out of poverty. Take China, for example. Coal power has allowed 650 million people to be lifted out of poverty since 1990 all while increasing female literacy rates and reducing infant mortality. (via The Daily Caller)

Environmental hacks like Al Gore know they can't simply get rid of oil and coal-burning power plants in America and other first world countries. That would create a massive economic crisis that could cripple their societies (despite this, Obama still tried). But they can easily infiltrate developing countries and impose strict standards that would prevent them from rising out of poverty and into the same standards the West enjoys.

Gore said, “renewable energy – particularly solar photovoltaic energy, or PV – far outranks coal as the best future energy choice for developing nations." Except that solar energy is shockingly inefficient; the world record for potential energy harnessed is 46%. The average is much lower. Plus on a cloudy day, you're screwed.

There are even studies that suggest, even with unlimited technological advances, it will never be viable.

Solar power cannot be made competitive by spending more money, hiring more scientists and conducting more research to find a technological breakthrough.  Please note the caption on the above illustration assumes “unlimited progress in technology.”  The illustration is based on 100 percent of the energy in sunlight, and no technology can ever extract more than that.  In practice, one can utilize only a small fraction of it. (via Heartland)

So why is Al Gore so determined to force poor countries to use this terrible technology? He claimed that solar power was "the best future energy choice" for these countries. Meaning- even in the best case scenario- it will work at some future point, not now. Yet studies suggest that solar power will always be unreliable. I'm assuming a man like Gore knows this. So does he just want to screw over these poor nations?

Maybe as a former politician, with business contacts and concerns around the world, he has a very real interest in protecting the status quo. Maybe if the third world started using coal and oil to lift themselves out of misery, it would throw the current global economy out of whack. New forces would pose threats to established, global businesses. We can't have that, right?

Gore might just be using the environment as an excuse to oppress poor nations to protect himself and his buddies. Sounds crazy? Then you don't know much about world politics.

Then there's Bill and Melina Gates. Aren't they great? Bill forced a terrible computer system onto the world through shady business practices, delaying the progress of computer technology for two decades. Now with all his billions, he's trying to suppress the sovereignty of nations and the individual rights of billions of people.

Recently, President Trump halted U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund- you know, that terrible group that helped support China's disastrous one-child policy (something that will plague that nation for generations) and encourages the murder of unborn children around the world. He also reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which does much the same thing in protecting lives.

While our president didn't want American dollars to help end the lives of foreigners, there were two people outspoken against him.

Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy was criticized in February by Bill and Melinda Gates, whose foundation has as its focus the support of family planning across the globe.  The Gates Foundation is also criticizing Trump’s foreign aid cuts:

“We’re concerned that this shift could impact millions of women and girls around the world,” Melinda Gates told the Guardian. “It’s likely to have a negative effect on a broad range of health programs that provide lifesaving treatment and prevention options to those most in need.” (via Breitbart)

Terms like "family planning" and "heath programs" are code for cheap and easy abortions. The Mexico City Policy doesn't prevent malaria vaccinations or the dissemination of aid to hard-struck countries. It simply denies U.S. dollars to fund abortions. Yet globalists that claim to care about the sick and the dying around the world are oddly obsessed with making sure women can abort their babies. You'd think that would be counter to their goals.

And by the way, the funding Trump is pulling from UNPF is going to USAID, an agency that provides material support to foreign countries including, "the goal of reducing maternal deaths and practices such as genital mutilation."

Maybe it's because the Gates Foundation believes that suppressing population growth is hand in hand with curtailing disease. Except that it isn't. Diseases of all kinds are prevented through vaccinations, improved living conditions, and educating people on things like cleanliness and the spread of germs.

Perhaps the real reason the Gate's are opposed to Trump's plans is because, like nutjob billionaire Ted Turner, they believe there are "too many" people alive today. They might believe that the growing population of humans- a natural function of life- is a threat to things like global warming. Then they target unstable, third world countries with policies that limit and restrain citizens' ability to procreate.

So while the Gate's thrived in a nation that wouldn't dream of limiting their people's right to have kids, they want to impose that kind of authoritarian control in Indonesia and other places.

But perhaps it has nothing to do with climate change. Perhaps the Gate's are like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who wanted to prevent certain races from having children. She believed that the poor were "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."

Like the age-old wars between the rich and the poor, the rich have always sought to eradicate the much large poor and working classes, before they could become too big, powerful, and educated to oppose them. Is this what Bill and Melinda Gates wants to do?

No, that seems too farfetched, right? They seem like nice people who want to help the power. But their actions speak of different motives.

When you're talking about super rich billionaires or former Vice Presidents who have connections with big businesses, the motives become a bit obscured. Perhaps they really do want to help the unwashed masses of the world. Perhaps they really do want to lift them out of poverty, while preserving the environment.

I don't buy it. When the elite try to help, they always seem to have ulterior motives. They always seem to want to put limits on those less fortunate, limits that didn't exist when they were getting rich.

That doesn't smack of charity; it smacks of oppression.