Why are the rich so woke? The Grievance Industrial Complex

Feeding time at the Grievance Industrial Complex

Why are the rich so woke? It is largely an extension of the champagne socialist and limousine liberal phenomenon. They have always been that way. But why are they so vocal now? Why are we constantly barraged by their shrill voices that we follow their instructions on how to be good, caring people – just like them?

Some of them, it has to be said, are rather sweet, caring people. (Hang on a sec – I’m building up to the damning part.) We may have friends among this category whom we love and cherish, not least because they tolerate our own cranky, outmoded foibles. Part of it may be a hippie hangover from the execrable late 1960s. But genuinely concerned and altruistic can also be genuinely dim-witted, bless. They see the world as how it should work – in their nice, orderly, gentle way – and not as it is. But they mean well. Besides. It’s good for conservatives, like everyone else, to have their consciences pricked and challenged on a regular basis.

Another major reason for the wokeness of the rich is the GIC: the Grievance Industrial Complex. Those employed in this prospering sector can make a very comfortable living indeed, thank you, holding lucrative posts in the liberal bodies espousing rights: charities, quangos, lobby groups and the like. You will find more than a few Ruperts and Henriettas among their number. Even better than the company car, travel abroad and holiday home in the Dordogne, is that they can rake in the money and be praised to the gills for their selfless crusading work. Cash and kudos. Win-win.

Sadly, the above brings us to the nub of the issue – many, perhaps the majority, are simply rank hypocrites. They assuage their guilt at being the haves as opposed to the have-nots, and devote some of their time and energy – but not their money in any meaningful sense – to seemingly charitable causes. Thus race, gender, immigration and ‘refugees’ become their rallying calls. Somehow, and laughably, the EU falls into this category (see above: ‘dim-witted’). It has often been noted – but still fails to resonate across the public – how our woke overlords always call for this or that minority to be given a job over an ordinary white bloke – but it is never our overlords who give up their sinecures and government-appointed quango post for the underprivileged. (If they did, I would at least applaud their commitment.) One or two get called out and then reluctantly but ostentatiously deposit an asylum seeker in one room in the east wing of one of their mansions (make that the left wing). But for the rest of us selfish, bad people, that isn’t an option. This instantly makes them, in their deliberately self-deceiving minds, ‘superior’ to the likes of you and I.

It’s all about assuaging the guilt of their privileged lifestyles. They divert attention from their own wealth and comfort so as not to receive any brickbats, and instead direct that attention to their good deeds in order to receive praise and even adulation for being such nice, virtuous people. They very much subscribe to the Bon Jovian philosophy of ‘we’ve got to hold on to what we’ve got’. You and I certainly ain’t getting it.

The wealthy woke

Are wily folk

They pose as saints

And don’t go broke

Subscribe to Digital magazine

Subscribe to Print Magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

5 Comments on Why are the rich so woke? The Grievance Industrial Complex

  1. Sadly there’s not much industry left to support the Charity Complex, it’s a self perpetuating, parasitic organism that preys on taxpayer diversions from Government departments and the generosity of the gullible, both organisations and individuals. Truly charity should begin and end at home. Why should we trust any of the parasite charity class that preys upon us?

  2. “Too many of those who should be most jealously preserving and defending what America represents have instead been paralyzed by a misplaced sense of guilt, which has led them to abandon faith in their own civilization…[particularly] those overglamorized dilettantes who posture in the latest idea, mount the fashionable protests, and are slobbered over by the news media, whose creation they essentially are. The attention given them and their ’causes’…reduces public discussion to the level of a cartoon strip…. Their minds are impervious to argument, and their arguments are impervious to fact… It is not a conspiracy, but a conformity… The trendies are an army of the gullible, steering by the star of fashion, drawn to the sound of applause… The defining characteristic of today’s intellectual and media elite is that it swims merrily in a sea of fantasy [in the] world of television [which too often] is to news as bumper stickers are to philosophy, and this has a corrosive effect on public understanding of those issues on which national survival may depend.”

    Since Richard Nixon published that observation 42 years ago, a conspiracy – calling itself “critical study” and “agenda networking” – and documented if belatedly by writers such as Michael William, James Lindsay and Joanna Williams, has been working remorsely and so far successfully on the guilt, conformity and stupidity of its target western, especially English-speaking, populations.

  3. The Pharisees, who advertise their presence in the synagogues, de nos jours, starting with His Grace Justin Weepy whose first reading the morning is “The Guardian”, the BLMLBGTQUIACND agitprop daily; for a good comment try the Bark of Peter (Mullen) @ the Free Nation online. Guilt is almost the only survival of religion in the moribund “Church” of “England” – Masochistianity. It is transferred vicariously (sic) to the population, whites-only. The Most Revd. Weepy nevertheless finds his institution “institutionally racist” despite the fact that his second in command at York said Jesus was a Black man and his predecessor in the episcopate actually was a Black man.

    “Foreign aid is the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries” (Daniel Moynihan).

  4. Is there such thing as moral snobbery, perhaps? It could take its place alongside intellectual snobbery as way to distinguish the refined from the common herd.