OK, entirely proven then. Zoe is completely ignorant

Poverty is not a naturally occurring germ or virus; it is anthropogenically created though wealth extraction.

Ignorant, ignorant, fucking stupidity.

40 thoughts on “OK, entirely proven then. Zoe is completely ignorant”

  1. “unfair trade agreements, land grabs, structural debt relations, privatisation of publicly owned utilities and tax evasion”

    Funny she should mention land grabs. The Left are normally all in favour of state expropriation.

  2. “Furthermore, as Martin Kirk from the activist network the Rules pointed out, all the language of sustainable goals frames poverty as a disease: eradicable, no match for the ingenuity of mankind, but fundamentally nobody’s fault.”

    And we xan’t have a world without an evil baddy to blame can we Zoe.

  3. Hahahahahahahsha.

    What a moron. I suppose the superstructure and institutions present in hunter gatherer societies is what impoverished them.

    Idiot

  4. So the Yamomani Indians of the Amazon Basin, dressed in skins, main cause of death, after 25% infant mortality rate and maternal complications of pregnancy and delivery, being homicide, are affluent as no one has thought it worthwhile to extract anything from them!

  5. So poverty is created by tax evasion… Apart from this phrase containing 2 socialist obsessions, poverty and tax evasion, is there actually anything that connects them?

  6. If one particular group of hunter-gatherers created an area where they could prevent other groupings from hunting and gathering, so expanding their reach as their group became stronger, then surely the adjacent group would become more impoverished?

  7. ‘If one particular group of hunter-gatherers created an area where they could prevent other groupings from hunting and gathering, so expanding their reach as their group became stronger, then surely the adjacent group would become more impoverished?’

    You are impoverishing me by refusing me access to your friedge. I shall be round tonight for a tofu sandwich.

  8. A classic of the genre – she seems too young to have been working for/sympathetic to the Soviet Union as many of the leading Guardian journos were hence one can only imagine she actually believes and promulgates this crap without being financially recompensed for it – Lord help us all!

  9. You forget that the Left see poverty entirely in relational terms. In a hunter gatherer society we’d all be desperately poor in the real sense but as desperately poor as each other, so really no poverty at all. A paradise.

  10. Interflora

    “You are impoverishing me by refusing me access to your friedge. I shall be round tonight for a tofu sandwich.”

    what? You’re welcome anytime. I’m not refusing you. You might want to bring your own tofu though.

  11. By the standards of both the rest of the world and of all of history Zoe is very wealthy. So who has she extracted this wealth from, and how is she going to give it back?

  12. Legs11

    At its core, lifting societies out of poverty cannot be solved by individual generosity. The tired old argument of “you’ve got some wealth why don’t you give it all away” is infantile.

    The problems are systemic. Williams is lucky to have been born into a wealthy society. The systems of wealth extraction are fixed and are upheld with our rules and with the power over others that being wealthy exerts.

    Not caring is anyone’s choice, sure, but that doesn’t give that opinion or argument any weight.

  13. >The tired old argument of “you’ve got some wealth why don’t you give it all away” is infantile.

    The western Left, collectively, has enormous amounts of money. Why don’t they pick a country and give that money to it? Pay off all its debts, or something like that?

    (The reason they won’t is not just because they’re selfish hypocrites. It’s because they know that that money will go down the drain before too long. Because as you say, the problems are systemic. Poor countries are mainly poor because of the nature of their society.)

  14. Its also another ‘its immoral that we cant levy infinite tax so the blessed public sector can provide “heaven on earth”‘ article.

    I.e. Vacant commie bollocks…

  15. Arnald, what do you suppose was man’s natural condition, wealth-wise, when we first crawled out of the primordial ooze? Is it not the case that, absent our capacity to create wealth, povoerty is our natural condition?

  16. “At its core, lifting societies out of poverty cannot be solved by individual generosity. The tired old argument of “you’ve got some wealth why don’t you give it all away” is infantile.”

    And, at is core, lifting societies out of poverty cannot be solved by redistribution. The tired old argument of “you’ve got some wealth, so why don’t we confiscate it and redistribute it” is infantile.

  17. You know what I love most about Arnald’s contributions? The little nicknames he gives everyone. They’re so clever usually too. Keep it up, lad!

  18. That quote isn’t evidence of stupidity or ignorance. It’s just blatant fucking antisemitism. Really, at that point she might just as well come right out and say ‘because the Jooz steal all the money’.

  19. WTF is “wealth extraction” when it is at home?

    I could guess (and I clearly have) but it almost certainly has some additional tricky nuances* in the proper SJW-approved definition that I am reluctant to miss by attempting to be sensible about it.

    * Can people of darker-hued skin “wealth extract”, for example?

  20. Arnald

    Your comment at 9.32 is interesting because it seems to recognise the origins of private property lie within our nature as hunting animals. The ownership of something is what allows us to exploit it not exploit others. When that adds value then everyone’s wealth increases, the fact that it doesn’t increase equally is inevitable but it doesn’t follow that anyone is being exploited. Exploitation of another involves the removal of value, to prove that the mere accumulation of wealth inevitably harms others you would have to show that there was some objective standard of who is entitled to what and why, I suggest that it’s not possible to do that. Surely you would agree that we are all far wealthier now than before the industrial revolution, never mind in Paleolithic times. Doesn’t that show that ZW’s assertion is just plain wrong ?

    Regarding the aversion of the left to private charity, no we can’t raise the world’s poor out of poverty that way but there is nothing to stop those who believe that wealth is unfairly distributed from setting up cooperatives or other organisations that would both benefit the poor and offer an example of how they believe things should be done. Religious believers have done things like that so why not political believers ?

  21. “Poverty is not a naturally occurring germ or virus; it is anthropogenically created though (sic) wealth extraction.”

    Yep, them capitalists have found how to extract blood from a turnip, getting rich by taking from the poor.

  22. I’m struggling with the “wealth-extraction” bit too, especially the ‘anthropogenically’ bit. That word seems a bit redundant to me. Is she implying there is some “wealth extraction” which isn’t done by humans? By rabbits, perhaps?

    How does she explain the rise of countries like South Korea? Subsistence farmers 70 years ago, rich industrial state now. Who did the South Koreans steal their wealth from?

  23. Rob>

    ‘Anthropogenically’ as opposed to naturally occurring: one cannot have poverty without Jooz to steal everything.

    As for SK, the answer’s obvious enough: no Jooz there.

  24. “Your comment at 9.32 is interesting because it seems to recognise the origins of private property lie within our nature as hunting animals.”

    Its long been an accepted point of view that the fundamental reason Africa and Africans are in general poor is their lack of property rights.

    Interesting that the lefts position is that we have no rights to our own money. e.g. the retired accountants statement that “all money belongs to the state”

  25. It’s the Marxist worldview. Wealth distribution is a zero-sum game – what one person gains another person must lose. Everyone works roughly equally hard, the labour theory of value says that wealth is equivalent to the effort put in, so if some people put lots of effort in and get little wealth, it must be being stolen. If everyone works equally hard but wealth ends up divided unequally, then the rich ones must have obtained it unfairly from the poor. Equality is the natural state of affairs, and inequality is an artificial creation caused by the rich ‘extracting’ (i.e. stealing) the wealth generated by the poor.

    In much the same way that the academically high-scoring kids at school could only have won their high marks in exams – their ticket to high-paying jobs and a future life of relative luxury and privilege – by stealing them from the hard working low-scorers, like the Marxists. It’s the only possible explanation.

  26. You’ve left out the current USA vogue – ‘white privilege’. Thats how you all got the money – didn’t you know?

  27. So the Southern hemisphere owes us in the North for its superiority at rugby. Using the words of the great Arnald:

    “If one particular group of hunter-gatherers created an area where they could prevent other groupings from hunting and gathering, so expanding their reach as their group became stronger, then surely the adjacent group would become more impoverished?

    The south are wealth extractors, I assume.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *