I didn't say Soros, and I didn't say "Koches". I said Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch because they are the men destroying the fabric of our society by 1) fueling non-stop culture wars and hatred (about a trillion dollars has been spent on right wing media since it's inception as big business) and 2) destroying our environment, which is already a crisis for many people around the globe if it's not for you.

These are the real problems we face. Not "wokeness" (basically just a nouveau slur).

More educated people aren't a problem, this has driven the greatest economic boom in history. It has driven the greatest reduction in interpersonal violence in history. Education is an unalloyed good. Political, cultural and economic equality for women and however many other categories of people you want to add to that list are unalloyed goods.

The problem is that all rewards are distributed to the top, because of the dominance of a small number of evil men over our political and economic system since about 1980. That is why competition to become an elite is so intense: only elites benefit from the current system. It is why we cannot get Democrats to govern properly, and why Republicans govern only with malice.

I agree with your analysis that inequality is a big problem facing the world. However, I also don't see wokeness as an unalloyed good.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm seeing a rash of articles talking about some real harm wokeness has been causing lately when taken to an extreme. For example:

- California pushing new math framework that recommends no Algebra before Grade 9 in the name of racial justice. This is bordering on Harrison Bergeron territory.

- UC schools eliminating SAT as admission criteria, which is used to disproportionally hurts Asian applicants.

- Elite colleges like Harvard making their admissions less meritocratic and trying to limit Asian and Jewish admissions in favour of White, Black and Hispanic admissions. This is reminiscent of adding extra-curriculars to discriminate against Jewish students in first half of 20th century.

- Cancel culture taking things too far.

Funding the campaigns of prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crimes sounds like it falls into the destroying the fabric of society bucket.

Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch are the ones destroying our environment? Can you explain or justify why you single out those two? Because from where I sit, that claim seems to be completely divorced from reality.

The lobbying efforts of the Kochs were famously inspired by their battles with the EPA. They spent half of their careers fighting environmentalism in service of profit.

Is it that from where you're sitting my points 1) and 2) a) aren't true, b) are true but aren't really harmful to society, or c) aren't the particular fault of the man who sits atop the right wing media ecosystem (which creates constant cultural conflict), and the biggest funder of climate change denial (because he's an oil baron)?

I don't think that your point 2) is true of Murdoch. The right wing media ecosystem is not the prime driver of environmental destruction. People (on all sides) wanting more stuff, and in particular more energy, is the culprit.

Also lots more restrictions on building residential housing.

This is a real problem, and a direct consequence of elite competition: keep other competitors out.

There should be enough places to live built as there are humans.

Have a look at 'Why are there NIMBYs?' (Eg http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.981... )

I wouldn't exactly call your typical middle class home owner an elite. Would you?

> There should be enough places to live built as there are humans.

We have the technology to build high and stack apartments, and the wealth to afford it. In many places, we just don't have the regulatory environment to do so legally.

Yes NIMBY is a problem and may be more about human nature.

The broken regulatory environment that exacerbates the problem is a consequence of elite competition: government not working for the public is caused by being captured by narrow interests, who work to corrupt its purpose.

The (upper) middle class homeowners who don't want apartments built nearby? They are, for various reasons, better represented by local governments than people who want to do new things. I agree that the concept of "elite" doesn't cover what's going on here, but there are echoes, because power is a spectrum.

That's the point I actually wanted to make.

> The broken regulatory environment that exacerbates the problem is a consequence of elite competition: government not working for the public is caused by being captured by narrow interests, who work to corrupt its purpose.

Alas, not necessarily. Normal voters are perfectly capable of demanding broken stuff all by themselves. Voters (somewhat rationally!) behave like idiots.