Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Injustice atop Injustice atop Injustice...

When one has M.E., as I do, and spends an awful lot of time in bed (being unable to move easily) feeling rotten and in pain, one is afforded ample opportunities to think about all the nonsenses being perpetrated in our name. How did we let it happen, we ask: surely, we couldn't have sleepwalked into a totalitarian state which uses 1984 as an operating manual? But then I went over to the ConservativeHome website to see what they're up to and realised that there are an awful lot of smug, sanctimonious, righteous and above all ill-informed people in the world who, possessing the inevitable limitations of those brought up under NuLab (i.e. the inability to reason from cause to effect, to use any logic whatsoever, and to revise history when they feel like it) simply can't be argued with.
On ConHome there were, for once, several articles not about finances but the erosion of everything useful in our culture, like apostrophes and religious freedom. Reading through the latter, I again found that worrying tendency to dismiss libertarianism as a selfish 'do whatever you want' ideology, and that governments must make sure that they act in the best interests of all their citizens. In other words, utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number, in a state where the government determines what the good is. If you consider that this government does - and this is the frightening thing - believe that it is acting in our interests, based upon the principle of utility, then it becomes overwhelmingly clear just how we ended up in this nightmare, where no-one is 'allowed' to say or do or even think anything without being watched and either reprimanded or ignored.
The baby-faced baby who's just had a baby, little Alfie, is a case in point. He not only doesn't understand finance, he doesn't even know the word: but why should he, when the government's prepared to shore up anyone who has their hand out for welfare (and then penalises the only deserving cases out there: but more of that at another time)? Get knocked up, get a house: and both Labour and Conservative have been so weak when it comes to providing a response (IDS even said something along the lines of 'not to be judgmental': if everyone's 'equal and 'just the same' it's unforgivable to judge) that I imagine hundreds are going to emulate the ghastly duo and pop out a sprog of their own in the hope of attracting large newspaper payouts and having Max Clifford as their publicist. 
Then, in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, the government's banned Geert Wilders from entering the UK because his film 'may' trigger some kind of reaction; in effect, that's the same as saying something's going to happen tomorrow. I 'may' get hit by a bus or join a Moonie cult: then again, I may not. There is a little thing called free will the existence of which is being denied here; the idea that people are incapable of distinguishing between radical Islam of the Hamas type (their charter makes interesting reading) and their next-door neighbours. Now, I found the Fitna film upsetting, because it was meant to be upsetting: but Wilders was correct when he said that he wasn't really responsible for it. The people pushing the idea that all Jews are apes to three year old kids or saying that gays should die or exploding themselves on trains did it for him. It's an unpalatable view of Islam, but any kind of extremism or radicalism is unpalatable. And you can't begin to fight against something properly unless you understand it.
I think the worst dichotomy facing us from a 'multicultural' standpoint is that we are at war with a group of people the ideologies of which we condemned to the extent that we went off to bomb the hell out of them, and on the other hand live in a country where it's illegal not to accept the Other. And people who don't who hold public offices are forced to be 're-educated' (gulags, anyone), such as the firemen who didn't want to participate in handing out leaflets about discrimination against gays. Why should they? It wasn't their job, and they weren't gay after all. They have a distinct and very important role - to put out fires: not to become spokesmen for political issues. Everyone is effectively being turned into a PR officer for so-called minorities. But it is often not the minorities - which, up until last year, included women, half the human race - who take on a victim mentality. It is the narcissistic and insecure socialists who attach this tag to minorities and then go out fighting on their behalf to get them 'equal' 'treatment', thus denying them the dignity of difference. 
The very fact of Britain being at war means that the government has to discriminate completely against negative views of Islam because, after all, we're trying to prove that our society is so much better to live in than that of Iraq and Afghanistan that we've just razed to the ground. And thus the battle against libertarianism in particular and liberty in general becomes all the more heated, because if people were allowed to exercise their free will they'd have none of this hypocritical, morally detestable, double standard imposed by the Left on our collective consciousness. Alas, to undo it, one would have to resort to their tactics and re-educate the masses to put an end to the willing slavery they exist in, which is taught to them in their cradle and shapes their entire lives. Every generation is about twenty years too late to guarantee the total liberty of the next.


Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat -Ralph Ellison