[whack]

I don't agree with PG's essay myself, but I do get peeved when people attack it for all the wrong reasons.

Russel's main thesis is that people often don't succeed because of their circumstances, that they deserve help, and that we need to build them up.

That doesn't contradict PG's main thesis. PG's main thesis is that helping the less well off is indeed a noble & worthy goal, but the best ways to help their quality of life, in an absolute level, may sometimes involve economic systems/policies that increase income inequality. That enabling income inequality and helping the poor, aren't necessarily in conflict with one another.

The 2 theses given above don't contradict one another in any way. If someone really takes issue with PG's essay, and many people like myself do, please actually write a response that addresses his main point in a fair way.