Globalist Explains Why Hunger Benefits Them – Update

Update: The UN couldn’t take the flak and removed this piece. They claim it was satire but in no way was this satirical. The author told MRC in emails that it was not satire. They also say it was put up 14 years ago which means they clung to this for 14 years.

George Kent, a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, posted an article in the UN Chronicle titled, The Benefits of World Hunger. The title gives you an idea of where he is going with this, and it fulfills its promise.

It seems that inflation and hunger are good things for the elites. Perhaps he is the only globalist who thinks like this, but we don’t think so, judging from what is happening in the world now. The planned chaos will produce poverty, hunger, and de-population.

This is how his piece starts out.

“We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.”

After explaining that they sell their services very cheaply, he wrote about how good that is because it enriches others.

“More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines, and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.”

He says, who would take those awful jobs giving us biofuel factories if it wasn’t for the hungry?

“Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.”

His conclusion was equally globalist and arrogant.

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.”

It’s unlikely that he thinks any better of the middle-class workers. Imagine how much we could all help these bozos if we were starving.

What do you think?

PowerInbox