Welfare: neither fair nor well, it turns out we really can’t afford
it and for all its flag-wavers there is no proof it works as, after years of religiously throwing ever more good
money at the holy welfare state, there is little positive change in the
circumstances of those it keeps trapped in idleness. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m
all for a bit of idleness now and again – I wish! - but as a lifestyle? We have
gone from a society which encouraged aspiration and endeavour based on the
pull-your-socks-up notion that ‘nothing worth doing is ever easy’ to one in which
vacuous celebrity, apparently achieved by mere existence, is seen as a
worthwhile goal. The devil does, indeed, make work…
Instead of the genuinely rousing call to competition – the
driver of evolutionary progress – we seem to have come to believe that ‘fairness’,
dressed up as compassion and love for our fellow man (preferably man, gay being
the new pairing favoured above that awful traditional way of rearing families)
is the way ahead. Meanwhile the human species is anything but fair as the existence of much of the world’s uneducated is motivated not by the
fear of losing benefits but of losing life itself. We really do need to get a
grip.
Paradoxically, those who peach fairness in western society
also go to great lengths to promote the preservation of the habitats of ‘wild’
species. We must not disturb the ‘natural’ ways of small furry creatures, yet
it is acceptable to keep humanity cooped up in great big zoos, where we observe
its aberrant behaviour through the bars of YouTube and other puerile and
invasive media; we wouldn’t shove an intrusive camera in the face of a pygmy
shrew, yet we’ll happily send a baying pack of paps to camp out on a celebrity
doorstep in the hope of provoking an extreme reaction. What odd creatures we
are.
But wait, can we criticise, or can’t we? Following the entirely
natural commentary to the Germanwings crash and the revelations that the responsible
pilot was behaving oddly we now find yet another leftist lobby trying to limit the language we
use. According to Brendan O’Neill, we can’t call the murderer of nearly 150
people a mad man: “...the [problem] with this latest
round of bash the tabloids (yawn) is that, like so much mental-health
campaigning these days, it is obsessed with turning depression into a protected
category, something that can never be discussed in a provocative way, almost
into an alternative lifestyle which must be accorded respect rather than being
stigmatised.”
This is the same way welfare dependency or diversity or
positive discrimination or bizarre family structures have been defended – ‘respect’
it - by legal force if necessary. Make it somehow an act of hate to even discuss
it and at all costs allow no opinion that seems to portray abnormal behaviour
as, you know, different from the norm. This is social justice? I suppose it is,
the Marxist way; allow every and any lifestyle choices no matter how bizarre,
except for the ones that we used to call normal. Ban words, limit freedom of
expression… except for those who are different. (But don’t you dare call them different.)
Cracking knuckles, Gromit!
But the really stupid thing about socialist thinkers is
that traditional families encourage exactly that – a form of micro-socialism
whereby we instinctively look after those for whom we care. So well done, you
campaigners for social justice, well done. Denigrate the urge to work together naturally and instead impose, top-down, cooperation on an impossible scale, with an impossible mix of competing tribes. Make
the state the family. How’s that working out for you? Given that yesterday Lucy Powell, spokesperson for the so-called workers’ party, repeatedly referred to ordinary
working people as ‘the tax base’ I’d say this Marx malarkey is more Groucho than Karl.
No comments:
Post a Comment