The Wealth Of The One-Percent?

We’ve all heard the claims…

The evil “one-percent” holds most of the world’s wealth. Therefore tax the rich harder. Inequality is on the rise.

But is any of this true?

Who are the “one-percent?” How much money do “they” really have? And should their money be taken from them?

And are agencies justified in putting out media headlines like, “The richest 1% now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, according to Oxfam.”

Or, “Half of world’s wealth now in hands of 1% of population.”

Such claims are intentionally deceptive, since they are designed to get you to think a certain way, so that you will support a particular agenda.

This is all designed to tame and make compliant the will of the people, a process in which the media plays a high-hand by no longer reporting facts but constructing narratives which will tell you how to think.

This brings up another problem entirely – whether the job of the media is to report events, or use them to mold your will.

The deception is in the details, in the way the figures are presented, with the assumption that most people will just read the headline, pick it up as a sound-bite, and keep repeating it, as if it’s true. This is known as “the power of the media.”

This “power” is only possible as long as the people allow it to influence them. But that’s another topic entirely.

So, let’s take an honest look at the actual numbers, without an agenda.

We shall use two major sources considered the most accurate, namely, BCG (The Boston Consulting Group) and the Hurun Report.

This what the latest numbers tell us…

There are 2,257 billionaires in the world. Their ranks have increased 3 percent over the past year – and 55 percent over the last 5 years. This is the total number of the “one-percent.”

All of these billionaires are newly minted, meaning that none of them inherited wealth; they created it by their efforts. In fact, two-thirds of all the billionaires come from humble backgrounds who carved out their own financial destinies.

The total worth of these billionaires is $8 Trillion. This is an increase of 16 percent from 2016, and is greater than the entire GDP of Germany and France combined.

This combined wealth is also greater than the GDP of any other country in the world, with the exception of the USA and China.

In the USA, there are 552 billionaires, which is fewer than China, which has 609 (it added 41 new ones to its ranks, in 2016, while the USA only added 17). Both countries have half the total number of billionaires on this planet.

The source of their wealth is not only stocks but also entrepreneurship. In other words, they create more wealth each year by putting their money to work in the various regions of the world, by way of industry and trade.

Now, let’s compare this $8 Trillion of the “one-percent,” with the wealth of nations – how much each region has. This is what find (these figures are for 2016):

North America’s wealth (mostly the USA, but also Canada) totalled, $55.7 Trillion.

Western Europe’s wealth totalled, $40.5 Trillion.

Eastern Europe’s wealth came in at $3.6 Trillion.

Japan’s wealth came in at $14.9 Trillion.

Latin America’s wealth was little better than Eastern Europe, totalling, $5.4 Trillion.

The wealth of the Middle East and Africa combined totalled, $8.1 Trillion.

Asia-Pacific (mostly China) came in at $38.4 Trillion.

Thus all told, the wealth of nations totalled, $166.5 Trillion. By 2021, this figure will increase to an estimated $223.1 Trillion.

How does this compare with the combined wealth of the “one-percent?”

Taking just the annual budget of the US, for 2017, the amount that will be spent to run the nation will be $3.65 Trillion, which exceeds the total revenue ($3.21 Trillion) by 2.5 percent.

So, theoretically, if the one-percent was stripped of its entire $8 Trillion, that amount would only be enough to run the US for little more than 2 years (2.19 years to be exact).

This quick comparison points to two things.

First, the railing against the “one-percent” is pure ideology rather than practical economics.

Second, the “one-percent” acquires (and acquired) its wealth by way of the wealth of nations – that is, by the entire economic engine fueled by the labor of people. The wealth of the one-percent and the wealth of nations is inseparably linked.

In other words, the one-percent do not earn their wealth separately from the way the remainder of the people earn their incomes. Their wealth feeds into that engine, which then produces more wealth (hence growth).

These billionaires are privileged only in the fact that they have gained wealth through industry. Two-thirds of them did not inherit it.

This is not to say that there isn’t disparity and exploitation, but these are separate issues from how we are to perceive the wealthy. For a bit of perspective, here is how the wealth of nations itself divides up.

In North America, 39 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 37 percent has $1 to $20 million. 14 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 9 percent has more than $100 million.

In Asia-Pacific, 57 percent of the people have less than a million dollars. 28 percent have $1 to $20 million. 10 percent have $20 to $100 million. And 6 percent have more than a $100 million.

In Western Europe, 70 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 19 percent has $1 to $20 million. 3 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 8 percent has more than $100 million.

In Japan, 77 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 20 percent has $1 to $20 million. 2 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 1 percent has more than $100 million.

In the Middle East and Africa, 44 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 30 percent has $1 to $20 million. 18 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 8 percent has more than $100 million.

In Latin America, 54 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 26 percent has $1 to $20 million. 10 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 9 percent has more than $100 million.

In Eastern Europe, 48 percent of the population has less than a million dollars. 19 percent has $1 to $20 million. 14 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 19 percent has more than $100 million.

When these figures are calculated on a worldwide basis, this picture emerges:

55 percent of the world’s population has less than a million dollars. 28 percent has $1 to $20 million. 9 percent has $20 to $100 million. And 8 percent has more than $100 million.

In effect, 45 percent of the world’s population is very wealthy, while a little more than half (55 percent) ranges from impoverished to very comfortable.

This means that the one-percent is really the eight-percent – and their ranks are continually growing, as new wealth is created, which propels individuals into the higher echelons of financial well-being.

In other words, prosperity is increasing rather than decreasing throughout the world.

How is this possible? Very simply by the fact that the wealth of nations is always working to earn more, and this earning increases the overall prosperity of nations and the people in them.

So, for example, in North America, the bulk of the wealth ($55.7 Trillion) resides in equities and bonds (70 percent and 16 percent respectively). Only 14 percent is in cash and deposits.

This raises a very interesting point – that the monetary policies in place today actually do create wealth – and this wealth is spreading (though not as widely as we might want it to). But the fact that monetary policies actually create and sustain wealth is important to note.

And this raises the entire topic of “fiat money” which is often the straw-man of those who think that a return to a gold-standard is preferable to the way the economies of the world work right now. (Such “critics” fail to address the fact that the wealth of nations is actually creating a lot more wealth, which is being distributed to more and more people).

Indeed, the middle class is growing and increasing rather than dying (those that propagate gloom-and-doom scenarios, including most politicians, are ideologues rather than economic realists).

The fact that the vast amount of wealth created in the US depends upon “fiat money” means that the dollar unhinged from metal (gold) is robust and provides consistently good results.

Money is only a medium of exchange. It has no value outside of that. To bandy about terms like “fiat money” becomes meaningless when we regard money in this way. It is a method of exchange, and therefore anything can take on that role. In contemporary economies, the gold-less approach has provided the greatest means to greater wealth creation.

In fact, the claims of stripping the “one-percent” of their wealth is nothing than pointless (and reckless) Marxist rhetoric, which seeks to further social agendas by spreading false assumption that some robber-elite has taken all our money.

Wealth does not come from nothing. It is the result of wealth working with wealth to create more.

And since the middle class is growing rather than shrinking, people have far better lives than they did just thirty years ago.

The widely influential book by Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century successfully launched the entire narrative of the “one-percent.” But its assumptions and its conclusions are false and serve only to foment dissent (perhaps the book’s true goal).

Actual data tells us that people in North America are living longer, have better lives and larger homes than people forty years ago. That is a great economic accomplishment.

The figures also plainly show – that the wealth possessed by the billionaires is hardly enough to run any country in the world.

To strip the billionaires of their wealth also means effectively shutting down the entire engine of prosperity, which provides an income for the vast majority of people of this world.

To shut down it all down and symbolically take away the wealth from billionaires is wilful ignorance.

This also suggests that arguments about economic inequality are baseless, because taxation is partly redistributed as welfare. Of course, there is poverty, but that is not the same as income inequality.

Further, the billionaires, like everyone else, actually earn their money, by providing products and services that people need, and which are good for society.

Taking such economic realism further, we have to bear in mind that money (whether it belongs to billionaires or not) is either spent or saved. There is nothing else you can do with money.

If it is saved, it becomes the engine of investment, which in turn gets put into industry or services that then provide jobs. If money is spent, it increases the consuming of products (made by industry) and services. Again, this money creates jobs.

Thus, whether money is spent or saved it continues to fuel the engine of the wealth of nations, in which everyone participates, billionaire or not.

To simply repeat Marxist talking points about taking away money from the “rich,” while providing no viable alternative once this money is taken away, is nothing more than irresponsible bluster.

In fact, the economic failures of Marxism are monumental and succeed only in creating masters and slaves.

Just consider this – Marxism, or socialism, is the ultimate Ponzi scheme – it can only sustain itself by continually taking money from others. It is not built to actually create wealth, let alone distribute any wealth to anyone.

Thus, socialism does indeed succeed in making everyone equal – but everyone is equal only in their poverty. We have only to look to Venezuela, North Korea, Bolivia for yet more examples of the socialist utopia. And poverty must always end in social collapse.

Perhaps it might be far more worthwhile to critically examine the purveyors of political rhetoric who are only interested in destroying things, rather than building things and participating in a world that creates wealth enough for all.

The engine of worldwide prosperity is the free market. Governments and Marxist rhetoric need to get out of the people’s way.

 

The photo shows, “St. Eligius in His the Goldsmith,” by Petrus Christus, painted in 1449.

Diversity And Tyranny

Indeed, the tranquilizing of citizens is the most distinctive feature of the modern therapeutic state. It is the hallmark of our medicalized humanity. From birth to death, from school, work, prison, and play, we can expect to be drugged in order to preserve the dream of secularized happiness in a world unable to deliver its reality. (John O’Neill, Five Bodies. The Human Shape of Modern Society, 1985).

 

Much is made of diversity. It is the supposed happy future where there are no nations, no borders, no cultures, no families, no men, no women, and certainly no races. There will be just an amalgam of beings and machines, intent on consuming products and tending to mechanized libido.

The great motto of this Elysium can be readily contrived: “You can have whatever you want, as long as it’s what we want to give you.” The “we” is the operative pronoun.

Why do people so readily fall into political camps, or get herded into groups so they can behave as they ought, namely, as participants in mass hysteria?

Who benefits from all this? Individuals certainly do not. What is there to gain by spouting ready-made phrases and talking-points seamlessly disseminated by the slick machinery of “culture” and “news?”

Perhaps some steam may be let off – but what comes afterwards? Emptiness and depravity – both perfectly embodied in the current religion of choice in the West, namely, “Diversity.”

“Diversity” is a rather meaningless phrase, perhaps purposely contrived (by the “we”) to mean nothing at all. Consider the following. “Diversity” can be seen as a cat-o-nine-tails phrase with which the West is to be flogged into better virtue. But whose virtue?

The word itself descends through French from the Latin, diversus (“turned away in another direction”), and is related to the English “weird,” which once meant, “fate.”

In the early years of its life, “diverse” carried a negative connotation, and meant “to be perverse,” or “to be a contrarian.”

It was only in the late eighteenth-century that the idea of “difference” became prevalent, at which time “diversity” became part of political jargon. But here it specifically meant economic diversity, in that people belonging to different trades and economic strata could work together for the benefit of the state.

The idea of “diversity” as specifically meaning race and gender plurality is recent, taking wing in the 1990s, with the work of people like R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., Liang Ho, Deborah Tannen, B.D. Tatum, and many others.

Through their effort, “diversity” is full-fledged cant of secular religiosity, and it is social engineering by our “betters,” the “we,” the ineluctable elite who are wiser than us, and therefore know what kind of future shall be good for us, and they will build it for us.

All we have to is spout acceptance (which they feed us through the culture-media machine). The State ueber alles! Long live the New World Order!

This Elysium will only be established in the West by the destruction of any and all of its cultural homogeneity. If anyone dares to point this out, he is deemed a regressive, and all are free to attach any and all labels that will enforce ostracisation.

It is always easier to silence, or even kill a man, when you can label him as anything other than a man.

But here lies the first great contradiction of our time. Racial and gender diversity demanded as “normal” in society can only be achieved by destroying diversity of thought, the diversity of ideas.

The greater “agenda” of diversity is really the curtailment of the majority. But only in the West. Non-western nations and cultures can be as monolithic as they want.

Those that call for “diversity” as morally right are putting forward a truth-claim which itself demands immorality. How? In three ways.

  • First, diversity destroys trust among people, so there is only the group that can validate life. People become habituated to regarding those outside the group with mistrust and even hatred.
  • Second, diversity dissolves individuality and replaces it with compliance, because it is far safer, and therefore better, to do the will of the group than to strike out on your own. Even when there is individualized action, that action can only further the aims and purposes of the group, so that the individual becomes an agent of the group in the world.
  • Third, diversity is immoral because it demands the denial of humanity of those outside the group. Here the culture-media machine plays its crucial role of playing one group against another, so that distrust, or anger keeps simmering, and people never really feel at home with those outside the group.

Never in human history has there been such intense ghettoization of humanity. What parameters of discussion are possibly left when the only vocabulary used pertains to genes and DNA?

We have now become a culture that vaunts and demands silent obedience and the ceaseless repetition of state-manufactured dogma.

This is not merely the establishment of institutionalized oppression, for that has already happened. Rather, we have now “progressed” to the minutiae of tyranny, in that the will of the state now passes for tolerance.

In the words of John Kenneth Galbraith, “Production only fills a void that it has itself created.”

Thus, “diversity” is the true alienation of all humanity, for people only have meaning when they belong to a group. Outside the group an individual is atomized, lonely, and incomplete – and all this only sends him scurrying back into the comforting folds of the group.

There is no individuality. There is only group participation, because only the group can bestow meaning.

Herein lies the second contradiction of our age. Western society which, deems itself progressive and hyper-modern, now honors and promotes the most primitive system of human interaction – one based solely on racial identity (which is a twentieth-century invention).

The teaching of this system is the bread-and-butter of universities, and its promotion is in the hands of the culture-media industry.

The West loves itself so much that it now engages in self-cannibalism that it might demonstrate to itself that it has indeed reached the gold-standard of selfless love.

When the world is stripped of all meaning, when only consumerism defines the public sphere, when nihilism has emptied the heart of all hope, what is there left to do but eat yourself, by all metaphors possible.

Grim is life when the world is inhabited by groups who consume as a herd, produce as a herd, hate as a herd, and kill as a herd. Civilization is deftly trodden under-hoof.

Why must this be so? Perhaps civilization also undergoes entropy, whereby energy dissipates over time – hot things cool down, vapor disappears, movement becomes stillness, and civilization falls apart into chaos.

It was Plato who first pointed out this pattern in his explanation of human beings and society.

For him, the highest “type” of man is kingly or aristocratic (not a blueblood, but one whose life is governed by reason), whose soul is guided by the Good, which is infinite truth, a truth which cannot be measured by finite standards.

The greatest fruit of the Good is justice, which is the disciplined ordering of the self and the soul, just as a government is only just when it knows that it is ruled by the Good.

Cicero summarized this in the now-famous phrase, Summum autem bonum si ignoratur, vivendi rationem ignorari necesse est (“If one is ignorant of one’s own Highest Good, one is by necessity ignorant of living by way of reason”).

When a kingly man falls apart, he does so in stages, and devolves into the timocratic man, who loses sight of the Good and begins to concern himself with ambition.

This results in the Good being driven out from the soul and being replaced by the thirst for power and honor, both of which are far lesser virtues than the Good.

Likewise, in government, kingship degenerates into timocracy, where politicians are driven by the pursuit of power rather than the pursuit of the Good.

In time, ambition is displaced by the desire for wealth, since both honor and power can be bought. In other words, ambition leads to greed, and money is made king.

In politics, timocracy gives way to oligarchy, since only rich men can afford to get into office. As Plato points out when wealth and virtue are placed in the scale, it is always virtue that sinks down as wealth rises.

The oligarchic man loves only money and commerce and chooses politicians that are wealthy; the poor have no voice in the system.

Thus begins the terrible tragedy of history – people begin to live in two worlds, one for the rich and one for the poor, both inhabiting the same earth, and both forever conspiring against each other.

At this stage of mutual distrust and hatred, oligarchy leads to democracy, where each man can do what he thinks is right. Plato describes democracy as a bazaar, where anyone can go and pick and choose what he likes and live accordingly.

Democracy by necessity is filled with variety and diversity and it hands out equality to both the equal and the unequal (as Plato wisely points out).

How can the unequal become equal in democracy? That is the great paradox of the West, and the very logic of all the calls for “diversity,” for the unequal are those ho have no interest in the Good; they only want privilege and power. How can democracy possibly tend to the diversity of the Good-less human soul?

The democratic man is a hedonist, who does what his pleasures demand. All pleasures are equal in his sight. One day he is a glutton, another day he is trying to get thin, another day he is pursuing some business venture, then he is off becoming a musician. Democracy also cannot manage the diversity of pleasures.

Such is freedom and happiness for the democratic man. Or, as Plato observes, there is liberty, equality and fraternity enough in him.

Because the democratic man knows nothing about law and order, which is discipline, and he is driven only by his appetites, it is not long before he descends into the last stage of human degradation – he becomes a tyrant.

Correspondingly, democracy becomes tyranny, because in the bazaar of freedoms you can pick-and-choose whatever suits your fancy. But the problem with appetite is that it always comes back.

The freedom to satisfy a ceaseless array of appetites is the most vicious form of slavery, because life has no meaning outside the satisfaction of appetites. In this way, tyranny begins.

Such drive for satisfaction creates the professional politician, who derives his livelihood from the government. Such men are like drones, who have learned to live off the labor of others.

Then, there is another class of men, the rich businessmen, who make it their purpose to feed the political drones that their wealth may increase at every level.

There is a third class of men in a democracy, who are not wealthy and who are not politicians. They wield a lot of power, since they are the majority, but they remain powerless, because they must go and earn a living. Such men look for a leader who shall speak on their behalf and whom they then put into power.

This leader is the tyrant, who knows how to wield power effectively – by taking money from the rich and using it to buy support and followers. He knows how to lie well, flatter sweetly, and make good-sounding but empty promises. The tyrant has no interest in the community, just in his own aggrandisement by way of wealth.

Likewise, the tyrannical man is enslaved to his bestial qualities; all those passions and lusts dominate his life. Therefore, this man is the most miserable because he is the most driven.

“Diversity” is the product of tyranny because it appeals to the bestial, instinctive aspects of human beings, namely, their tribal identity. There is no interest in building the goodness of the soul, or solidifying the foundations of reason, let alone advancing civilization.

Instead, diversity can only function when it succeeds in stirring up passions and lusts – and the most effective method is through the primitive “us-against-them” paradigm, where neither reason nor the Good are needed.

If life is nothing more than satisfying the need  to belong, the world itself must fall apart. And the result is recorded in the words of H.G. Wells:

“He saw it all as a joyless indulgence, as a confusion of playthings and undisciplined desires, as a succession of days that began amiably and weakly, and became steadily more crowded with ignoble and trivial occupations, that had sunken now to indignity and uncleanness….he saw life as…desolate, full of rubbish….And then suddenly he reached out his arms in the darkness and prayed aloud to the silences, ‘Oh, God! Give me back my visions! Give me back my visions!'”

 

The photo shows, ” Lamartine, in Front of the Town Hall of Paris. Rejects the Red Flag on 25 February 1848,” by Henri Félix Emmanuel Philippoteaux.

From The Trenches: Teaching Sociology?

Sociology is taught as social reform – identifying the problems of the world; and therefore, it has become mired in relativism. Students are given “case studies” that deal with this or that issue, with the intent of providing a “correct attitude” about society.

These attitudes pass as sociological education, which can be summarized in this way: Society is made up of oppressors and victims; and it is the job of the educated (“socially aware”) person to identify and condemn the oppressor and valorize the victim.

This may be laudable, but it is not education – and it is certainly not sociology, despite the focus of most textbooks.

A fundamental question, therefore, arises: what is the point of teaching sociology? The answer is a variation on a familiar theme – sociology is, in the end, social reform, the fixing of society. Do we need such reform?

Sadly, these fixes tend to be simplistic, if not downright naïve – the world changes as a result of complex ideas; never because of raised awareness. Raising awareness about cancer has not led to a cure; not even massive funding has helped.

Here is the crux of the problem – sociology is seen to be two contradictory things. First, those who teach it professionally perceive it to be a science. Those outside the profession see it as anything but science – because everything is sociology.

Mathematicians may hold varying and conflicting notions about the reality of numbers, but when asked to teach students, there is an immediate “common ground” – students must know the basic and fundamental ideas or principles of mathematics.

What is the common ground of sociology? There is none; there is just varying and conflicting perspectives (endless meta-theory).

Science does not teach perspectives – it teaches principles, ideas. Once students understand ideas – and make them their own – only then can they start thinking with them. If there are no ideas – there can be no thought; hence, the need for attitudes.

Possessing attitudes is not education – it is a deeply disturbing form of conformity; a conformity that passes for enlightenment, but is nothing other than personal feelings – and outside of feelings there is only ignorance.

Education fails miserably if it cannot allow an individual to transcend the confines of individual preference. The only way to do that, of course, is to intellectually equip the student to enter the world with ideas, not with attitudes.

But, for some reason, sociology cannot express its own “common ground.” One has only to look at the countless “Introduction to Sociology” textbooks in the marketplace. Typically, these textbooks seek to “stand apart” by some schtick that will make “the material” either “relevant,” or “engaging.” In other words, how to make sociology teachable?

The assumption is that education can be had via some sort of catchy, marketable trick, which will hook the student into learning something, anything, which can then be described as “sociology.”

Unfortunately, very few people now understand the fact (yes, the fact) that education – and reading – is hard work. It has nothing to do with enjoyment (that used to be called entertainment). Education is difficult work, which is why it is valuable.

Further, when typical sociology textbooks are analyzed (need we say, scientifically), not for content but for approach (or pedagogical usefulness), a consistent methodology emerges.

They invariably set out to define the many “systems” that are seen to hinder or even oppress the individual. Then these “systems” are rigorously critiqued through the lens of diverse (and at times contradictory) theoretical stances (always postmodernist in inclination).

And the result is a hodge-podge of meta-theory that provides to the student neither a clear understanding of sociology as a discipline with precise and marked parameters, nor a firm grasp of the nature of society or societies.

For example, trying to find a simple (yes, simple) definition of “culture” becomes an exercise in frustration. All these textbooks offer is endless examples of culture, followed by tedious ramblings in dead-end areas, like “cultural studies” and “media studies.”

And what does the student take away from all this? Who knows? Empiricism, the science behind sociology, is nowhere in sight.

The second problem with teaching sociology in our time is the fact that science has been abandoned in favor of relativism. And this has meant a loss of objectivity.

Sociology is now rife with a partisan mentality, which suggests that only those inside can properly study and explicate the forces at play in society.

Thus, for example, ethnicity can only properly be studied and explained by ethnic minorities. Anyone trying to study or comment on ethnicity from the badly labeled “dominant group” is simply someone trying to maintain existing power-structures that favor his/her dominance.

In this way education becomes social action. And yet we all know that the world is far greater in complexity than this one-dimensional attitude.

Certainly, it is the nature of all societies to include and exclude, which may be examined by ideas, such as, class, anomie, family, institutions, crime, roles, hierarchy, labeling, and socialization. These ideas have existed for as long as human beings have chosen to live together.

But can our students clearly and simply define these ideas? Have these ideas become part of their thinking? Do they understand the empirical basis of these ideas? Can they use these ideas to rise above the malaise of our civilization – relativism?

Sociology once more needs to teach from the common ground of empiricism. It must abandon relativism, which has effectively sabotaged the Humanities and social sciences.

Students no longer look for an education. But then education also used to mean knowing the basis of your goodness.

Who knows what goodness is, say the relativists? Despite that, the majority of human beings on this planet still want to be good.

Science does not need to be relevant, or engaging, or interesting (we only have to keep mathematics in mind).

Now that sociology has wandered away from its own discipline, as it tries to be all things to all people, it can only promote agendas, whether political or personal, and therefore it will rightly disappear. Who needs more attitude.

 

B. Hughes teaches sociology at college.
The photo shows, “Après l’office à l’église de la Sainte-Trinité,” painted in 1900, by Jean Béraud.

Of Universities And Soul-Murder

Have universities gone the way of the spittoon? Does anyone still need them? Why do students go into mountains of debt to keep these institutions in business? What do they offer that is worth so much investment?

There are countless explanations and discussions seeking to demarcate the nature of higher education in our time. The vast majority of them can be boiled down to two arguments.

First, there’s the call for more or better funding because universities aren’t doing enough, aren’t inclusive enough. More cash might put “education” right. Of course, no one explains what “enough” really means.

The second argument seeks to align higher education with supposed market needs, where degrees become “jobful.”

“Jobful” being that seamless fusion of education and guaranteed future employment – you go to college so you can get a job.

Both of these arguments, however, labor under an unquestioned assumption – that society still actually needs what colleges and universities continue to supply.

But it’s precisely this given, this uncritically accepted supposition that must be thoroughly questioned. Has higher education gone off the rails?

First, what do students pay for when they go to get higher education?

The most popular courses are the Humanities, which do everything but worry about humanity, let alone employment. Their focus is political training of the youth, which they do by offering:

  • A Marxist-postmodernist mindset. Literature, history, philosophy, and all of the many distortions of these once noble disciplines (such as, sociology, anthropology, gender studies, political science, cultural studies, communications, media studies, psychology, and so on) – are all taught by way of a deep anti-west prejudice.
  • A professoriate that is radically left-wing, which holds up socialism as the great tool by and through which utopia is to be built. Little do they realize that if they actually succeed in bringing such a utopia about, they would be the first ones lynched from the nearest lamppost, since they all belong to the highly privileged 1 percent.
  • A plethora of so-called “applied courses,” which supposedly “prepare” graduates for immediate employment. The reality is far harsher. Most graduates with such degrees end up as retreads (those forever taking yet more courses to get a job). How many journalists does society need? How many lawyers? How many social workers? How many MBAs?
  • A vicious cycle of poverty, as graduates struggle to manage huge student debts. Is training in Marxist ideology worth it?

This is truly soul-murder.

Humanities remain the bread-and-butter of higher education, since that is where the majority of the students end up. This “education” strips the graduate of all independence of thought, rendering him/her an atomized creature.

The universities know these humanities degrees are worthless, which mold individuals to live in perpetual conflict with society, since said society will always fail to live up to the socialist ideals of the collective, the all-powerful political machine, high taxes, and the expansion of the working poor,

Isn’t it about time that people saw through this scam? Do parents really want their children becoming some version of the Social Justice Warrior?

On the other hand, there are also the sciences, which are often divided into two types:

  • Theoretical science (mathematics, physics, astronomy), which seeks to add to scientific knowledge, and which often has no immediate practical application.
  • Practical or empirical science (health, chemistry, biology), which investigates cause-and-effect in nature in order to devise solutions for various problems.

The sciences have retained their traditional role, because they cannot do without discipline, merit, and talent. There is no postmodernist leveling of the playing field here.

Thus, the sciences have not abandoned truth (though this does not mean that attempts have not been made).

That said, “jobfulness” has infected the sciences also, so that theoretical science now takes a backseat to empirical science. Students would rather be doctors or pharmaceutical researchers than mathematicians or astronomers.

Theoretical knowledge has been made subordinate to instrumentalism, so that ideas are only important if they have direct, practical application. Utility is greater than wisdom, and thinking has declined.

Although science has remained true to its root, it is ultimately inadequate to care for the complexities of life, because it cannot answer any questions concerning the soul.

Thus, “jobfulness” creates soullessness in higher education.

Is there not a deep hunger for the good in life? To live a good life is to possess that soul-wisdom which gives you happiness, even in an empty room.

There is this story told of Stilpo the philosopher. When his city of Megara was captured by the Macedonians, their king, out of respect for the philosopher, offered him compensation for the loss of property. But Stilpo refused, saying that no one had carried off his learning, no one had taken away that which made him a man.

Education is not about acquiring physical things – it is about possessing a treasure that cannot rust, that cannot be looted, that cannot be lost. Education is a treasure of the soul.

Human beings need good ideas, because life is inherently about the practice of goodness. If you do not know how to practice your individual goodness within the larger goodness of society, you will be lost, you will be disgruntled, you will be unfulfilled, because without goodness, you cannot be human.

Goodness alone defines us, because it gives us value in this world.

Understanding and developing your goodness into maturity is the true purpose of education, either in the Humanities or the sciences. This is what once made education invaluable to life.

But the education of today has nothing to do with goodness, and therefore it has become profoundly anti-human. All it can offer is nihilism.

The professors have prostituted themselves to falsehoods and lies – that is why they can only speak about “social justice” (which is nothing other than that old Marxist fable about the “redistribution of wealth”).

These professors have no wisdom to offer their students, since they have no goodness to call their own. They only know the grisly tussle of politics, and what they preach they themselves do not want – otherwise, they would have long rushed to the few Marxist “paradises” that still remain on the earth. They proclaim Marxist austerity for all, while being paid by the prosperity of capitalism.

Of course, tenured faculty remain the most privileged group in society.

Universities are also severe socialist enclaves, maintained within a free society, paid for by the free market, which are given free license to murder the souls of the youth with nihilism. Why?

Why do we continue to maintain these Moloch-institutions?

Where is the outrage from parents, especially, given the high cost in actual dollars that every student has to incur in order to offer up their souls for slaughter?

We need to begin judging universities harshly. We must reject their appeal to expertise, because they have none. The Humanities, as taught today, have nothing to do with expertise. They have everything to do with brainwashing.

This tyranny of the education-industrial-complex needs to be broken, because nothing can reform it, given its strength and its backers (who have their own agendas).

Should it not be the concern of every parent to keep the minds and souls of their children safe from the wounding and destruction that the universities offer?

Here are some ways to move forward:

  • Seek out only those institutions that conform to the moral values of your family. They certainly exist. Here are some of them: New Saint Andrews College, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, Our Lady Seat Of Wisdom College, Wyoming Catholic College, and there are a few others.
  • Do not automatically send your children off to university, as if that is an ultimate good which will benefit your child. There are other options.
  • Pool resources and start creating your own institutions of higher learning. This is not impossible to do. It only requires persistence and determination. There are enough disgruntled professors out there who are always looking for ways to escape the tyranny of their universities. Take the next step after home-schooling.
  • Remember, all colleges and universities exist because of the goodwill of the people. Remove this goodwill and these oppressive institutions will fall. Every sensible parent should work to bring about the fall of these modern-day Babylons.
  • Withhold your tax contribution earmarked for public education. Give this money to those institutions which conform to your values. This requires courage, but it’s important to dry up the money flowing into these institutions.

The higher education-industry-complex exists in opposition to your society, and to your civilization. Isn’t it time to dismantle it?

A few words on education itself, since it’s important to have a proper understanding of it in this age of mass confusion.

Walter Lippmann made this crucial observation many years ago: “We have established a system of education in which we insist that while everyone must be educated, yet there is nothing in particular that an educated man should know.”

This is the dilemma of the entire modern educational system – the insistence on education for all, without any explanation of what education should be. It is truly the blind leading the blind.

Before the fog of postmodernism, education was about building the good human being. Yes, good. Not the efficient human being, not the compliant human being, not the robotic, party-member human being – but the good human being.

This meant that education was about the care of the soul, which is the practice of self-discipline and integrity, which is the nurturing of restraint within freedom, which is using wisdom to fashion understanding, which is living within the bounds of obligation and responsibility.

How many times do we hear, “I am proud to…, I am proud of….” How little (perhaps never) do we hear the phrase, “I am humbled to…, I am humbled by….” This readiness to display pride, this inability to declare humility is the greatest failing of higher education dished out by the education-industry-complex.

Only through the efforts of parents will education again be aligned to its true root, which is morality, as found in the wisdom of Greece and Rome and Judea. This is the root that nourished western civilization, a civilization which has become the desire of all the world.

In other words, western civilization cannot be anything other than Christian. If we move towards a post-Christian mind-set, then our societies will be cut off from the root and will become everything but civilized and everything but western.

Is it right that we should let this civilization be destroyed by the tyranny of the university elite, who care nothing for the souls of their students?

Let us finally start afresh and return education to its true purpose.

The English philosopher, A.N. Whitehead observed: “The essence of education is that it be religious ….A religious education is an education which inculcates duty and reverence ….The foundation of reverence is this perception, that the present holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity.”

Higher education needs to return to its true root, which is the care of the soul. Once we understand how to care for the soul, only then can we know how to educate our children, who can then walk into life and build the good world.

 

The photo shows, “Sunday Reading At Country School,” 1895, by Nikolay Bogdanov-Belsky.