Saturday, 29 October 2016
Red & Blue
An infographic appeared on social media in the run up to the US presidential election, showing how the map would look if only certain groups voted. With red for Republican and blue for Democrat (which always looks wrong) it is not surprising that the intentions of certain groups show polar opposites in colour scheme. The map for ‘persons of colour’ is entirely blue, whereas that for ‘white men’ is almost entirely red. Overall it isn’t particularly illuminating except for one obvious thing; the groups perceived to be disadvantaged all turn to the big, blue party of state. What a shame, then, that state intervention in social affairs generally tends to make things worse.
There is something persuasive about the idea that the strong help the weak. Maybe because it works in groups who have reason to club together – families, interdependent settlements, etc – it is tempting to believe it can work in wider society. But really, what is my incentive to support you, who I don’t know from Adam and have nothing in common with, unless it is to deter you from turning to crime and violence to take what I have worked for? That isn’t a welfare state, it is a protection racket. Oh dear, Mr Taxpayer, we wouldn’t want you to have an ‘accident’ now, would we?
How do those who promote all-pervasive socialistic meddling in the affairs of the population sell the idea to its client voter base? How do you get people who at heart have the same drives as those they would rob? You warp the notion of fairness to include entitlement without effort. You discredit the idea of ‘bettering yourself’ insisting that mediocre is good enough. You push the agenda of equality, insisting despite all the evidence that all people have equal worth and therefore are deserving of equal outcomes. But most of all you must paint all who don’t share your vision as somehow evil.
Just as social media has devalued superlatives, such that the lamest of jokes causes people to say they can’t breathe, or that they are in actual tears of laughter, hyperbole must be employed at every turn. It is not enough to have a debate and present an alternative view; shouting ‘you lie!’ is now sufficient to declare that you have ‘destroyed’ the opposition or merely repeating your own poorly presented argument without relevance constitutes ‘owning’ the other side. Into this disturbed and easily persuaded ocean of credulity it is a simple matter to portray all who disagree as Hitler.
Once this would have been dismissed as the hysterical outpourings of student union politics, but all over the world, apparently respectable commentators of full adult credentials are coming out with guff like this: “...we’re [seeing] aprocession of European far-right nationalist parties — the U.K. IndependenceParty in Britain, the National Democratic Party of Germany and the DanishPeople’s Party...” Writing like this often refers to popular movements as ‘far-right’ and assumes that the working people who support them are engaged in routine and extreme, Nazi-level bigotry. Ironically this conclusion must not be challenged.
Get out your crayons!
Into this confused state of affairs enter one well-known agitator for failed solutions, Ken Loach, demonstrating that with a bit of effort one can sustain gullibility long beyond the age when wisdom ought to have displaced your juvenile leanings. I, Daniel Blake has had mixed reviews, divided pretty much along the same social lines that would paint a national map monochrome blue or red. I won’t be seeing the film. I don’t need to. I’ve lived adjacent to it and seen it all before. The chaotic lives people live and their detachment from the political process and the way they can gleefully accept the mantle of victimhood and become performing seals for the left-wing circus. Controlled and cajoled by promises that in a century have never been delivered. Duped by promises of a better life hereafter, who is really manipulating their map?