Profound Evil

Thing that Used to be Conservatism Talking Head Kevin O’Leary says 3.5 Billion people living in poverty is “fantastic news”.

This is pure Darwinian contempt for the weak. It has no relationship whatsoever to the teaching of Christ. It is, in fact, anti-christ and those who profess this philosophy risk the everlasting fires of hell as surely as those who advocate abortion and sodomy. This man is rejoicing at the oppression of the poor, plain and simple. Oh sure, he does it in the name of some theory of survival of the fittest (much as abortion advocates advocate their evil in the name of some Greater Good). But what this man cheers for is nonetheless one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Don’t buy this filth or you stand a very good chance of having a closer look at Dives fiery couch of luxury than you might like.

Pray for Kevin O’Leary and all who think like him. They are in as grave a spiritual danger as a partial birth abortionist, particularly because so many Christians heap approval on their monstrously evil philosophy.

"Why is the notion of moral trajectory unCatholic? Do you equate civilization with history?BTW the ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"To clarify the above: The U.S. Bishops recommended "a community-based case management program", as well ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Then I would question any reference to the president of the US as president of ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"I don’t know that they gave to preserve criminal prosecution as that option already exists.Right. ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marthe Lépine

    Very interesting! I was just debating a couple of days ago with someone else who claimed that there was nothing preventing a poor person from starting a business and getting wealthy. Since I myself have 2 university degrees (the first one obtained with honours when I was only 18), have worked very hard at self-employment (could be called my own business) for nearly 40 years and am not wealthy yet, I have been wondering what was wrong with me. This explains it all: I have not been motivated enough! Time to pick up my socks, even if I am now 71, and start really working!

    • HornOrSilk

      What is more interesting is that Kevin constantly talks about big business squashing the bugs (he’s the one I am constantly quoting in some of the other threads). He’s all about the money, all the time. But, he is at least honest about where it leads, unlike many of the supporters of the rich.

    • KM

      I know of whom you speak. The gist of the many arguments I’ve been reading comes down to the following:

      Poor people (especially in America) lack motivation, and superior talents and skills from God. Furthermore, poor people in America never had it so good! Anyway, they’re just envious. It’s so easy for anyone to get millions if people would just get motivated enough, and work *hard* enough, to start their internet start-ups. Nothing’s stopping anyone from being rich because we have so much Freedom ™! We should also idolize rich people because clearly God has blessed them with superior talent and skills. The poor? Not so much. So the undeserving poor deserve their poverty. But yes, rich people should maybe help them however that might be socialism. The government has no business helping at all because that’s also socialism and it’s giving the poor no incentive to work hard.

      I think I summarized it as best I could.

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        Yep. The sheer cluelessness of some very well meaning people never ceases to stun me. A couple of years ago, a very sweet well meaning lady told me: “The reason people stay poor is that they don’t know how to manage their investments properly.”
        This coming from a woman who has never held down a job. No fault of her own. She comes from an upper middle class family and married rich. She wasn’t being willfully ignorant. Her life experience has simply blinded her to the reality of most people in the world.
        For many of us, our “investment portfolio” is tied up in low yield returns like food, shelter, and shoes for the kids. We don’t really worry about our hedge fund accounts, because we don’t have any.

        • Marthe Lépine

          However, we might have been brainwashed to consider only monetary returns as worthwhile. In reality, food, shelter and shoes bring their own returns in things like the comfort of a relatively full stomach, health, protection against the elements, etc. One thing I have found really deplorable during the last decades is the increasing focus given to a home as just another investment, to be bought and sold for monetary profit, instead of a more or less permanent haven for the family. Which could have been a large reason for some of the home mortgage problems of the last recession: I remember seeing ads that claimed that people could solve all their debt problems, etc. by re-mortgaging the asset that was their home and obtain in this way a better financial return for that asset. IMHO, bs, but non-financially astute normal people fell for it. And then, the vultures closed in…

    • This entrepreneurial monomania is what’s doing more to cost the Republicans votes than anything else.

      Most people are not entrepreneurs and never will be. The vast majority of people will work for someone else for a wage all their lives…and this does not make them defective people! It makes them average. Ordinary. Middle-class.

      Just the sort of people there is no room for in the coming “average is over” era (cf. Tyler Cowen). This should trouble everyone…but conservatives seized with entrepreneurial monomania shrug it off. Can’t these people all just apply some elbow grease, start businesses, and make their own way in this brave new world?

      No. No they can’t. Not everyone has the same gifts and callings, or the same opportunities, and there is no way that everyone can be above average.

      Just because there were people who got rich during the Depression (and there were!) doesn’t mean it was a healthy economy, and doesn’t mean that the only thing standing between the destitute millions and prosperity was just a little pluck and hard work.

      • Elaine S.

        “This entrepreneurial monomania is what’s doing more to cost the Republicans votes than anything else”

        And former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum seems to agree:

        “Republicans “live in a bubble,” former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
        Santorum told the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation for the Texas Legislature Thursday (Jan. 9), and are detached from the pop culture and concerns of the average Americans whose allegiance they need to prevail nationally.

        “We live in a bubble. We don’t realize what’s going on,” said the once and perhaps future presidential candidate who is now head of a movie studio based in Flower Mound that produces Christian entertainment….

        He told his audience, which will also be hearing Thursday from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, that they also tend to assume everyone shares their drive.

        “Republicans by and large are Type A personalities who want to climb to the top of the ladder, ” said Santorum. But, “a lot of people want to be good simple folks, go to work, 9 to 5.”

        The consequence: “No one’s talking to the job holder — not the job creator. We don’t want to talk to people who want to be with us.”

        He said it is a failure of empathy that has led Republicans to spend too much time talking negatively — “cut this, cut that” — focused on facts and figures, pie charts and bar graphs, while Democrats talk more compellingly in stories and images that are the way most people receive information.

        “Our programs are right, our message stinks,” said Santorum.”

        Whatever you may think of Santorum’s policy proposals or political views, or whether you think he would be or would have been a suitable POTUS, I think he hit the nail on the head here.

  • Dan C

    My claim is that these problems would be easier to manage and more clearly outside the Catholic faith had the “seamless garment” pedagogy be maintained. Instead, this pedagogy was suffocated in the bathtub of the culture wars. The Catholic Wars took on Bernadin’s as an enemy and his teaching as not only a failure but as probably heretical.

    Two decades of rejecting the “seamless garment” has left Catholic pedagogy weaker and allowed views as above to blossom among the faithful without opposition. I doubt there ever was a better teaching technique for so so many Catholic public positions than the “seamless garment” technique.

    • Dan13

      I don’t think I could agree with you more.

    • Bill

      Well, I think you certainly can have a right ordered hierarchy of concerns, without suppressing others. So you can have an emphasis on things that are non-negotiable (because they are) while not using this as an excuse to either ignore, or actively politic against things are negotiable.

      The seamless garment was used as a way to totally ignore abortion, SSM, euthanasia et. al. It absolutely did. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and it was Crop Walks all over the place and no protests in front of the abortion clinic.

      • MarylandBill

        In fairness, back when Cardinal Bernadin was alive, I don’t think many people thought that Same Sex Marriage was going to be an issue in their life times.

        I also think a distinction needs to be made between the concept of the “seamless garment” and the way many (mis)used it as a way to avoid working to end abortion and to oppose euthanasia.

        • Dan C

          You propose that there exists but one way, protesting and legislative means, to end abortion. This actually is a “negotiable.”

          The empiric results of such a process is that it has been a 40 year failure. Even more, pro-lifism now is its own spin off of a series of beliefs and pragmatic approaches raised to the level of dogma. Attached to this is a political move by Robert George to tie marriage matters and abortion and small government matters under the same roof. It is partially advocated and shared by Reno.

          Pro-lifism has become unmoored to Catholicism and exists as its own political movement moored to conservativism.

          • IRVCath

            At least on the ground this seems not as true. While there is a political prong, there is also a prong dedicated to providing those services to pregnant women and new mothers that the State can’t or won’t provide. Seamless garment in action. You give us younger people too little credit.

            • Dan C

              Most of the policy conservatives are working at cross-purposes. They are all for ending that aspect of welfare. The gaps are not filled in any stable fashion at the same time by private donors. Welfare is an enormous force for good for these crisis pregnancy assistances.

              • IRVCath

                Right, I’m not disputing that. But the pro-life movement is not just the politicians, thank God. If it were, we would have accomplished nothing. I do maintain, however, that we also ought to take the fight as we have to the political realm, but perhaps in favor of policies, not parties.

          • Bill

            Everything becomes moored to some political ideology. It’s all what Francis is talking about in terms of idols

        • Dan C

          Mr. Maryland Bill: so sorry. This response was for the response above. I will place it properly.

        • chezami

          Nah. What really happened is that Reactionaries took the opportunity of a few people misreading Seamless Garment to totally trash it and ignore it, much as Reactionaires have attempted, with less success to do the same with Francis being misread by the MSM. The goal–by conservatives–was to eliminate Seamless Garment thinking, not adhere to it. Mission accomplished. And we are still paying for that.

          • AquinasMan

            Is it the goal of any Catholic to “adhere” to the Seamless Garment ideology (or any particular ideology)? Francis seems to be against adhering to ideologies, in general:

            “And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people…But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”

            Blaming “Reactionaries” is much too facile an explanation. Cardinal Bernardin had severe credibility issues as the disaster at Mundelein became common knowledge. I would submit that, at least locally, Seamless Garment ideology was met with indifference, not so much opposition from sectarian groups.

            EDIT: I guess, ironically, Seamless Garment ultimately wants to eliminate ideologies, but became one itself.

            • Dan C

              I refer to this again as a teaching mechanism, not an ideology. The “binding” of social moral statements into a cohesive, easy-to-understand, piece was done by the term “seamless garment.” Now, we have bloggers and writers among conservatives explaining CST and anti-abortion views held by someone like Francis or Benedict as being simply “Catholic-neither left nor right.” It has been a hard education. We see public Catholics like Kudlow dumb-founded by Francis and his approach to CST (he clearly missed Caritas in Veritate).

              We have prominent bloggers and writer-priests openly rejecting USCCB statements (see Economic Justice for All 1986).

              The “seamless garment” would have been such an inoculation against the straying of Catholic conservativism down these paths of libertarianism.

              • Bill

                I do agree that Libertarianism is the great scourge today… moreso than anything else. At least Communism was honest in its atheism, and eventually pragmatic about religion.

          • Bill

            Well, true, but I lived in the Diocese of Rochester for example. The Seamless Garment for years was used as a way to make the Church ONLY about social justice concerns, and a way to minimize or repudiate issues like abortion. The Progressives did do it first. Saying that doesn’t mean the Reactionaries aren’t using the same playbook now in the Francis era that the Progessives did during BJPII and BXVI

            • Bill

              The Reactionaries were Ultramontanes for decades, and now they are Gallicans.

            • Dan C

              Pedagogically, the shredding of the seamless garment has hurt conservatives more than liberals. Just from a teaching point. Mr. Kudlow is a fine example of this.

        • Bill

          I don’t necessarily agree. The Unitarians were fighting for SSM since 1979. It was there.

      • Andy

        It is not all that difficult to corrupt what is a positive viewpoint – all it takes is creative use of parsing of words. Pope Francis seems to run into that almost every tine he speaks.
        The seamless garment was a way to tie all life issues together – not to tie non-life issues to life issues.

        • Bill

          Exactly Andy, it goes both ways

    • I suspect you’re not going to believe this, Dan C, but in my admitedly limited experience here in NH, self-identified Catholic “conservatives” are beginning to be very open to the seamless garment pedagogy now they’ve had experience of where the culture wars took them and the complete lack of loyalty to truly conservative values that characterizes the Right in this country. (Also, recently our bishop, +Peter Libasci, strongly opposed capital punishment in the state and made all the priests preach a homily against it. That was interesting.)

  • KM

    O’Leary’s attitude is what’s helping to drive people away from the Republican Party and the Libertarians. The Democrats aren’t any better though. They talk a good talk about helping reduce income/wealth inequality, but they’re just as beholden to the same corporate interests that the Republicans are. The government-corporate collusion has become much worse under the Democratic party.

    • Dan C

      There is more of a case for communism as an acceptable Catholic position than libertarianism. Libertarians have not made that case. They have much work to do on this. Anarcho-communitarianism may have more access to a groudning in natural law than libertarianism. Each of these has access to Christian meanings of “the community” and one’s relationship to authority. Libertarianism is a divorce of community authority from rightful government.

      • Sorry, but when reality intrudes in opposition to reality, communists murder, but libertarians don’t. That’s a fundamental difference that it is impermissible to pass over.

        Communism’s fundamental problem is that it is incapable of calculating a price and thus must founder economically. It thus is either very short lived or held together by the threat of violence and gulag.

        Libertarianism’s fundamental problem is a tendency towards over-large idea of what parts of life are amenable to economic reasoning. It is an avoidable flaw. This makes it more compatible with Church teaching which does not have a fixed economic philosophy.

        • HornOrSilk

          Libertarians don’t? This is pure nonsense, since a large portion of the libertarian position is might makes right, and they use their might (guns) in excess. They also murder by sins of omission.

          • You don’t really know much about libertarianism, do you? Might makes right is pretty much the exact opposite of libertarianism.

            Murder by sins of omission? I think that it’s hard for anyone to escape that charge, myself certainly included. Chain yourself to an abortion clinic’s doors lately? I haven’t.

            • HornOrSilk

              Actually, I know all about it, and the nonsense of the people who follow its selfish way. It is a philosophy of Satan. And yes, might makes right is the end result, and many many many libertarians love their guns and opportunities to use them. And yes, murder by sin of omission as the libertarians try to remove all ways for life to flourish as they reject the state’s call for justice. They reject the state, they reject authority, they reject tradition: they have only the love of the self under the guise of a pseudo-morality. They have Satan.

              • I’ve been out of town and unavailable to answer so pardon the delay. I haven’t actually read you define libertarianism in any recognizable way to demonstrate that you’re doing more than libel.

                When the state calls for justice and delivers injustice, that’s both unjust and what happens every day in every country on Earth. Caesar has not proven reliable when unrestrained and so the libertarians, among others, seek to restrain the state, unfortunately to less than full success.

                Murder by sin of omission seems to be a construction unique to you and I simply do not understand you. I’m willing to work with you to achieve clarity or at least communication but I think it’s a reasonable demand to define your terms (murder by sin of omission) and trace out your logic path (might makes right is the end result) because, brother, you’ve lost me and all I’m hearing is angry insults seeking to hurt and drive people away from the Church instead of seeking to reconcile by carefully delineating what is the easiest path available.

        • Marthe Lépine

          I do not think murder in itself is part of the principles of Communism. Could be that the problem is in the way that philosophy had been so ruthlessly imposed. Ruthlessness does not belong to any particular ideology – it is more of an equal opportunity thing!

          • Perhaps the first time that the cycle of economic dysfunction leading to power choosing to create gulags, that would be a valid excuse. After all the times that it has been tried, Communism’s consequence of gulags has to be included as an essential feature. Otherwise we have learned nothing and the dead died in vain.

            The utopian communists are what you are looking at. But the utopians died out specifically because they could not make the economics work and thus peacefully disbanded their experiments. They gave up power and that ideological variant died a natural death. All that is left is the ruthless.

  • capaxdei

    I’m not sure O’Leary’s position is coherent enough to be profoundly anything. He merely reduces Oxfam’s statistic to a problem he has already solved, which is, “Yay money!”

    On the other hand, I didn’t know he had a talk show until I saw this clip, so there may be a method to his incoherence.

  • AquinasMan

    I keep watching this video because I want to believe this kind of callousness isn’t possible, but it is.

    • HornOrSilk
      • Stu

        I don’t say such things much, but that man is an ass.

        • kmk

          Yes, and he really needs prayer…

      • Marthe Lépine

        I see… That is probably the reason I did not get wealthy: For me, my “business” was just a tool to make a living, not my personal god. If an “entrepreneur” is supposed to work 24/24 on his business to make it a success, and money is the only thing that counts, I and most of my colleagues in the free-lance translation business are simply out of the game. Some of them even dare to have families! IF they remain, not really poor, but in financial difficulties, obviously it is their own fault…

      • Joe

        This guy is a cartoon character. How can he be real?

  • Alma Peregrina

    I was not expecting that response to the statistic… my reaction was exactly the same as Amanda’s from 00:22 to 00:24. In her shoes, my reaction would be even more lingering, because I’m flabergasted how someone can be so stupid and/or cruel.

    • Alma Peregrina

      I like how he constantly ignores the poor people in the stats and just focuses on the rich. Even at the end, Amanda talks about people in abject poverty and he says: “But we were talking about rich people”.

      It’s like he has some kind of mental block or something. I do think a psychologist could study his case: a perfect example of denial to protect himself from the trauma of his own evil actions.

      If catholics go around condemning abortion while protecting guys like this… then I can not, in conscience, be catholic. It’s completely unreasonable to define birth as a kind of time-limit that separates the human beings that must be protected from the ones that may be destroyed. This goes both ways.

  • Harri

    He also has another quote of note; “The reason we are on this Earth is to get rich.”

    I presume he intends to take it with him…

  • Dan C

    I googled how Kevin O’Leary made his mint. Seems he sold a huge lemon to Mattel, was fired within 6 months, and the deal was so bad that Mattel’s CEO was fired soon thereafter. It is referred to as one of the worst business deals in history.

    • Dan C

      But it doesn’t matter if he sold a worthless company! He made money.

      The song from Cabaret is playing in my head.

    • Dan C

      It is apparently termed the Greater Fool Theory of deal-making. He was a winner, and Mattel was the Greater Fool.

      We peasants call it criminal. Con artistry. But such matters are so plebeian. He and the 1% are not subject to such morality. Winning defines moral quality in capitalism.

  • Ronald King

    People are just objects to be used for his purposes. He has an exaggerated sense of self worth, lacks empathy, does not exhibit insight concerning how he contributes to the suffering of others. These are some of the symptoms of a sociopathic and narcissistic personality.

  • Just to get things out of the way, the guy’s a moron. That being said, Oxfam’s statistics are envy mongering and their own brand of problem. Both sides can’t lose, can they?

    The problem isn’t that there’s inequality in the world. The problem is that incompetence among the rich is excused while among the poor, there is little pity. The problem is not that there are some tiny, wildly successful individuals. The problem is that there aren’t more of them.

    The poor are becoming less oppressed as legacy tyrannies are starting to give way to market economics and the poor are being lifted out of poverty because of it. Great! I wish it would have happened faster and sooner. Oxfam’s politics stand in the way of progress for the poor and that disgusts me.

    • HornOrSilk

      Here we go again, with the typical ” the poor envy the rich” comments. Lazarus envied Dives. Yes, we all know. Lazarus was lazy, sitting at the street, and it was his just lot because of that envy he must have felt when looking to Dives, seeing Dives live a life of excessive luxury. It is all a desire of the poor to attain such luxury and the feeling of envy they have when they see those who obtained it. Yes. We get it.

      The poor are so evil because they wish to eat.

      • Oxfam is not the poor. Oxfam is a charity organization that has a mediocre record in terms of keeping overhead down. That means they have nice offices and generally the higher ups who green light these campaigns have good salaries and excellent perks.

        Oxfam is who I’m pointing fingers at with my critique. The poor, by and large, are busy trying to survive. They have the usual bell curves for all the sins including envy. They do not make a career out of it as a general rule. Covering for poverty pimps does not make you virtuous.