And if you had read further, you would have seen that I said:

Unfortunately, because history, and the deep study of it is no longer mandatory, the highly destructive idea that greed was good, that the economy was everything, that competition brought out the best in people, that ‘diversity’ was good, and that the rich should not be taxed, made its appearance. Most people simply did not understand the relevance of those changes made at the start of the 20th century.

It is not poverty itself that leads to violence — it is resentment against others. When people live by vastly different rules, sooner or later they clash. If one culture believes that it’s okay to murder their daughters if they marry out of their religion, and another culture sees that as murder, then, sooner or later, the nation which is home to these two opposing cultures will begin to fall.

Feudalism kept people in the UK in extreme poverty while the lords lived the high life. There was no civil strife.

You clearly haven't read the piece, and you have no idea what was said in it. I do not agree with Haque. For the record, he was also responsible for the DEI supposed research that said business would make more money if they were diverse. That has now been disproven. It doesn't. It costs a lot more and makes less money.