Equality? Why set your sights so low?

I got into a war of words yesterday about ‘nigger’ and its connotations. Actually, it was more of a skirmish with no blood drawn and despite the antagonist wanting to paint ‘anti-racist’ slogans on every available wall and talk about slavery and black history and all the grievances that the clumsily-monickered BAME community spend their lives dreaming up, it is, after all, just a word. It is in common currency among certain groups and used in much the same way as I am greeted most morning at work with the cheery “’Allo, you cunt” and “Morning, fuckface.”

But those who chip away at the lexicon of difference in the name of celebrating diversity merely do the Left’s Marxist work, which is to sell grievance as an unalloyed good, attack tolerance of this whole charade as indifference and tout an agenda of race hate in the name of the furtherance of humanity. When it comes to words the left far surpasses the right who generally believe that a thing should be called what it is. The strange and uneasy alliance that constitutes most of the political and social activism practices the Orwellian craft of doublespeak - deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language – and seek to deny their detractors the words to respond.

Thrift is denounced as ‘Tory cuts’, increased public spending, year-on-year is similarly branded ‘Tory cuts’ and any Conservative politician who seeks to get a better deal out of this public spending, an increase in performance, say, is a ‘Tory cunt’. Of course the left has always been adept at selling bad things as good – unchecked immigration is celebrated as multiculturalism; an alarming rise in knife crime is merely the small price we pay for ‘vibrant’ communities. And a threat to bankrupt the country in order to buy votes is simply a bid to create a kinder, gentler, more equal society.

Which brings us, once more, to the Holy Grail of leftist dogma; equality. How dare the boss earn more? Why shouldn’t the lumpen proletariat share in the nation’s wealth to the degree they feel they deserve? Why shouldn’t my finger painting and mindfulness diploma hold parity with a degree in mechanical engineering when it comes to work? And how dare you insist that I put my actual name on my job application, so that racists can prejudge me and deny me my right to equality in everything?

Why? Because equality is a crock. Equality is sold as the acme of social achievement when it is in fact the opposite. Chains, of command, hierarchies, and leadership; promotion up these ladders  is how we - humans and other animals - measure progress. I don't want to be your equal; I want to be your boss. If the customer is always right, does that not imply that the balance is in favour of him and against the equality rights of the salesman? We measure ourselves against others all the time and we judge our accomplishments not by how many crossed the finishing line simultaneously but by who came first.

And it's no good talking about equality of opportunity; human nature will skew that every time. All that counts is coming out on top; doing the best you can in the present circumstances, not spending all your efforts in a futile game of victimhood, bleating that somebody else, whom you don’t respect, has judged you and declared you wanting. Maybe you can't get to where you want to be in one lifetime, but don't you owe it to your children to give them the best possible head start when they pick up the baton? Forget equality; you can do better than that.

Social Conservatism

After Ireland’s gay big landmark gay vote it turns out that within the EU only Italy and N. Ireland do not now recognise gay marriage. It was only on listening to some improving radio the other day that I discovered that such liberalisation is seen as ‘rolling back social conservatism’. Among other measures making up this rollback are the encouragement of fatherless households via the general practice of not judging and saying ‘Hey, there are no rules!” Also not to be judged are childhood behaviour, academic performance and antisocial behaviour; all of these are subject to the ‘invent a syndrome’ method of explaining away why people just can’t be expected to fit into society, like they used to.

Misfits. That’s what we called them. Don’t play by the same rules and that’s what you are. Except that’s a pejorative term and thus not allowed in this brave new world with all the social conservatism sucked out of it. But without societal pressure, how do we make sure people do the right things, say the right things…think the right things? Why, we make the practice of wrong things illegal and not just generally illegal, but specifically illegal. Chief among the statutes of the new liberal society is the growing list of hate crimes. Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the many sub-divisions that proliferate under those headings. So that we can all be equal and diverse we must be subject to a legal system that brooks no diversity… and often doesn’t apply equally.

Dare I say Rotherham? In fear of the dreaded charge of being politically incorrect the systematic gang rape and trafficking of a truly awesome number of young girls was allowed to happen with the full knowledge of far too many responsible persons; the same people who would have children taken from a drunken mother, or wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute a young suitor for not heeding his girlfriend’s ‘no’, sat idly by while hundreds and hundreds of young lives were irreparably damaged. Theirs is a life sentence for no other reason than the imperative to ‘roll back social conservatism’. But why?

Social: ‘relating to society or its organization’. Conservatism: ‘A general preference for the existing order of society and an opposition to efforts to bring about sharp change’. What, I ask you, is wrong with that? Yes, things change and yes they should, but for there to be an actual agenda and appetite for such rapid alteration is something we should all fear. The last Labour government actually trumpeted this agenda and then set about rubbing our noses in it. The current ‘Conservative’ government appears to be continuing to obey to the letter the same set of commandments, blaming it on Brussels. I don’t doubt that the EU is fully committed to the rollback, but come on Britain, where’s your fight?

As far as I can recall, in our socially conservative society, we used to generally be polite to each other not for fear of punishment but out of respect. We accepted that others had different viewpoints and while they could be challenged, the idea of creating laws to prevent them from stating their views was a tool of totalitarian states. And nobody called anybody who wasn’t an actual acquaintance ‘mate’. Yes we may have had ‘a place’ and knew it, but there was comfort in fitting into that place. Now though, rolling back social conservatism has also resulted in a lack of opportunity for social mobility.

Now we have politicians who say “I have been very clear” when they have clearly been anything but. We have young people with no concept of hierarchy and consequently no way of understanding where they are now and why they are going nowhere any time soon. And we have armies of socially ‘progressive’ activists who will not stop until we are all uniformly fucked-up, genderless, deranged, lost and helpless human-like automatons. Far from promising liberty, rolling back social conservatism looks a lot to me like, ‘a boot stamping on a human face – forever’.

Do it now!

There is a lie which nestles deep in the disturbed heart of the welfare state. It is not an intentionally cruel lie, but it kills with its surfeit of kindness. It is a lie more deadly than ‘work will set you free’ and a lie more ubiquitous than ‘the cheque is in the post’. Worse, it is a lie that is presented as an obvious and irrefutable truth, accepted as gospel in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary. It is so insidious that it is enshrined in the American declaration of Independence, to wit: “…that all men are created equal…”. Palpable bollocks, promulgated by those who would rule over us and accepted by useful idiots who wouldn’t see the truth if it actually palpated their actual bollocks.

Equality requires an excess of effort that would rule out any selective drive for its perpetuation and would quickly render extinct those mutants that displayed it. Look around you and say it ain’t so. But what a lovely idea to promote; and what a very clever way to foment emotional urges to feel better about ourselves. Because while competition is the real driver of progress, cooperation is one major way in which the human species has overcome the limitations of simple herd instincts. People aren’t ‘created’ equal; nothing could be less self-evident, but this doesn’t mean we can’t also be kind without coercion. Inequality and ‘social justice’ (for want of a less puke-inducing, tree-hugging, lentil-munching phrase) are not incompatible.

But I’ll tell you what is incompatible: enforced ‘equality’ and meaningful social justice will never co-exist successfully except in the minds of those who imagine themselves to be innately superior. And there is the central paradox – those who swallow the socialist equality myth think they are inherently better than those who create the wealth that allows our cooperative society to indulge their little dreams. And those same brave comrades cannot accept that, to paraphrase Sting, the Tories love their children too. So it is that without pausing for a moment’s thought, Mummy’s Little Marxists brand everybody who doesn’t need shoehorning into a charity pigeonhole as ‘baby-eating Tory scum’.

But here’s the stupid, the real, couldn’t-make-it-up stupid. Those same big competitive beasts DO love their children too and willingly cooperate and contribute to help the children of others by bearing the lion’s share of the tax burden. To label those who labour in the real world to pay for the socially engineered fantasy world of the equality of low expectations as cruel really takes the piss. To try and make people ashamed of their success and strive always to take more of the wealth they have created is a game with only one end; the final whistle blows when they take their ball away.

The real 'Ed Stone'

So the idea of filthy rich, tax-over-easy, famous junkie role model Russell Brand exercising his own unnatural hold over impressionable minds and coming out for Red Ed, the Unite puppet and advocate of state-control over everything is irony indeed. Hate the rich Tories? Be careful what you conclude: Don’t fall for it kids; while we’re still paraphrasing stuff remember the old adage “Tired of being hassled by stupid politicians? Act now! Get a job, pay your own bills, pay taxes then vote for Labour to take away your gains and give them to others. Do it now, while you still know everything!”

The Glass See-Saw

Nobody would look to this blog to provide balance. Why would you? If you want ‘balance’ you simply queue up at the EU admin counter and get your card stamped to say you’ve achieved it having paid the appropriate fee. As long as the quotas have been filled and the paperwork has been completed that all-important equality objective has been ticked off and whether or not anything has actually been achieved, social justice is seen to be done. Or not. Whatever – as always in politics it’s the perception not the real outcome that matters, which is why those of us who live outside the political vacuum can see things that the apparatchiks cannot.

Take gender balance. Yesterday, although I was dimly aware that such moves were afoot, I became aware of the utterly deluded ambitions of the EU to impose gender quotas on the membership of company boards when it cropped up on the Daily Politics. Now this is not some report that points out the positive effects of diversity – real or imagined – on society. Nor is it merely the promotion of the desirable and sensible British government policy to have equality of gender representation in government departments such as health, education, law enforcement, social services and the like. No, once again and without meaningful consultation it is the direct imposition of EU political will on private companies, whatever their business.

Whether you are in the arms trade, heavy industry, engineering, football or space exploration you will, by mandate have to have 40% of your non-executive board made up of women – like it or lump it. Before you even begin to call me a bigot in this regard, let me state that I believe that who makes up a company’s board is the business of that company alone and it should be comprised of the best people for the job. If that results in a board of ALL women or ALL men so be it, but it is a matter for the shareholders to decide and I don’t know a single sensible person who believes otherwise.

Shortly after I joined the Royal Navy, Britannia Waived the Rules and not only allowed what were formerly called Wrens to serve at sea, but also brought to an end the long and proud history of the WRNS. In order to push through a policy that the navy hadn’t asked for – and neither had a majority of serving Wrens – a lot of young women were advanced beyond their capabilities in order to make up the numbers, with consequent resentment from longer serving and better suited male candidates. Those who did not want to volunteer for sea service (why should they, this wasn’t what they had joined up to do?) suffered a consequent lowering of their prospects. Many of both types, disappointed, opted for PVR (Premature Voluntary Retirement).

Stock market listed engineering firms – I was with one for a while before it disappeared up its own backside (not my fault, honest) – applied the same positive discrimination so that organisations of almost wholly male population were managed by a disproportionate number of young women, often with little understanding of the work. I’ve been there and seen just how difficult it is for a pretty, young female graduate from an entirely different discipline to motivate a hairy-arsed team of forty-year old, deep engineering specialists. It is ugly and demoralising and just plain wrong.

The usual escape route for said young graduate of the politically-correct gender when the project founders is promotion out of trouble.  Each according to their abilities? From an avowedly socialist European Union surely the notion of forever hammering square pegs into round holes must sit uneasily? But no, for the projekt has dictated we must be equal by decree even if we’re not equal to the task and it provokes nothing but an uneasy tension between unwilling participants.

What next? Enforced equal participation of men in aromatherapy, nails, feet and Avon? At least 30% of births by 2020 to be to male mothers? A major newspaper investigation to reveal the horrifying reality that almost all NHS breast enhancement surgery has been carried out on women? Women to be compelled to grow moustaches every November? All schoolgirls to attend compulsory arm-wrestling and farting classes? And operation Yewtree officers to be deployed to investigate just why it is that so few men are inclined to take up careers in childcare?

Let companies choose, for goodness’ sake. And let the life choices of men and women affect their careers, proportionately. The ceiling isn’t glass at all; it is built from the resentment and bitter frustrations of private companies just trying to turn a profit. The equality see-saw will forever be canted one way or the other; why not let it find its own preferred position without the interference of all the cants in Brussels? Mind you, having said all that let’s give total equality in all areas a go – bring on the heavyweight boxing.