Money – The Moral Compass of Conservatism

Money is actually moral brownie points to conservatives, and the more you have the better, and I actually mean morally superior, person you are. The people who have the most money of all, instead of being like scum on a pond that always rises to the top (my view) are instead seen as the ultimate moral paragons. The richest of all are nearly canonized for Sainthood.

People who have little money are dim, or if not dim then surely idiots who have no common sense. Worse, most poorer people are evil, with their evil increasing as they move down the income scale. Poor people are actually bad people. You see this moral scale applied everywhere in conservative ideology, even by some elitist commenters on this board. If humans suck, well, the poorer humans suck most of all.

It is not by accident that conservative humans used to throw the poor in debtor’s prisons. While Jesus said to give all your money away, his latter day followers a few centuries ago had turned it all around. Being poor was actually a criminal offense. Poorer people were like thieves, muggers, rapists and killers.

You see this ideology carrying on today when conservatives construct a welfare = theft paradigm that says almost explicitly that to be poorer in an advanced society is to be a thief. All of the poor are common thieves, no better than robbers and pickpockets. This is the mindset underlying all conservative philosophy, taken to its utmost in Libertarian “taxation is theft” mottoes.


Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Political Science

9 responses to “Money – The Moral Compass of Conservatism

  1. TRASH


    Rich people do not want the poor to breed, per se. If you are poor you are expected to use a rubber or simply self-gratify.

    This is wear NAMS become a headache and a nightmare. The poorer they are the more children they will have for lack of anything else to do.

    I’m not sure how long a decreasing population of Joos, Anglo and Asians can continue supporting them.

  2. Actually Pretty Funny

    “The richest of all are nearly canonized for Sainthood.”
    Doesn’t mankind always work like that since the dawn of ages? I mean besides some weird instants like Genghis Khan with his Horde who massacred anyone even with money, it always end up the same?

  3. Jason Y

    Note that a lot of the hateful racism for mxed race and pure darker people is because they more like to be poor, hence be the sort that will rob the elite class. In much of Latin America, the rich or middle class live in constant fear of being robbed etc.., so no wonder they support ideologies which are racist.

    • Brian Damage

      With the advancement of automation, the wealth divide will be wider in the near future. Latin America and South East Asia offers plentiful examples how the world will look like in the future. Both have market dominant minorities monopolizing their respective economies.

      • TRASH

        BRAIN DAMAGE We’ll see the lovely horrors Fuji Chinese have set up in Philippines or Indonesia where a few own the means of production-corporations-and you have masses of poor Malays who have to dig a hole when they want to shit.

        Chinese IMPROVE the living standard of these places? Crazy….but corrupt, locust-like Chinese peasants from the Fuji province have created some countries in Southeast Asia that might be our future.

  4. People who have money are favoured by God. God rewards the righteous with wealth.

    There is the protestant work ethic. So obviously, someone is poor because they deserve to be poor.

  5. Jason Y

    Even in my own family you see a struggle between rich and poor with the richer members under suspicion for trying to control everyone and take all the money, simply cause they have the resources to easily do it.

    On the other hand, the rich members point out the poorer ones are morons, handicapped, lazy, ungrateful, scheming, and addicted to dope.

    So we see the same thing in the US vs Latin America struggle among other things.

    • Jason Y

      Possibly the biggest problem is the richer members have earned thier money, hence a big thing they can say is “Well, you all fucked around for years, refusing to get an education, or hold a job for longer than a month, and now your all jealous and resentful, blah blah blah..”

    • TRASH

      Latin Tony Montana types into drugs are dead at 35 like the Pacino character and black dealers “in da game” get out or are dead at even EARLIER AGE.

      But poor white drug addicts whose IQ is slightly higher stick it out to a real mature age: at 45, 50 they are STILL getting busted for selling small amounts of drugs, drunk driving, violating probation.

      Whites druggies live to ripe old ages which is a misery to everyone around them. Latins and blacks are dead at 40.

      Druggie’s kids tend to be affected severely, too. Hispanic and black men father kids with some broad but fade out of the picture so the kids do not see Dad shooting up meth or dealing pills.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s