in terms of tactical character assassination, the basic problem with
this unashamedly, yet somehow endearingly enlightening, left-wing-slanted slagging site, is its phenotypical predisposition to attack the politician due to disgust at his politics, rather than attack his politics due to disgust at the politician; one could, you see, spend silly time speculating as to whether, for instance, the
secretary of state for shirk and pencil-sharpening is:
a) in any conceivable way a productive member of british society
b) nobbing his sexy parliamentary assistant
c) proud to have served a cushy-tour in zimbabwe (overseeing the former british colony's transition from a whites-only paradise to a black-on-black battlefield hell) as aide-de-camp to a british major-general who was previously intimately involved in the genocidal operation against kikuyu tribesmen in kenya during the "mau mau" independence struggle
d) confident that he was, in accordance with his own sponge-crushing criteria, fully deserving of the unemployment benefit which he claimed back in the early 1980s
e) comfortable with having married into the antiquation of a wealthy aristocratic family, which effectively owns an entire buckinghamshire village, lock-stock-and-smoking-barrel, thanks to a swash-buckling naval ancestor who was baroneted for empire-and-booty-building efforts including his military contribution to maintaining jamaica as a british slave-colony
f) looking forward to a rainbow vista of full multi-cultural employment in britain - where black people will no longer be socially-suppressed and conveniently tucked away in state-subsidized inner-city ghettos, but will, conversely, be gainfully occupied licking his wellies clean of aylesbury vale mud and otherwise generally attempting to forever secure their own small corner of idyllic english heritage by breeding-up his daughters and snaring-'n-snatching his sons
however i will resist such sordid temptation and stick solely and religiously to the subject of the politics that
the secretary of state espouses...
for starters, i'm bound to remark upon the pointless nature of criticizing the
secretary of state's desire to decimate the benefit system, for it is, after all, a government's customary prerogative to decide where and how to spend our hard-earned tax-monies (that's why one elects the arseholes into office in the first place, is it not?) and, in any case, the compulsory charity enshrined within the welfare-state has done little to bring communities together, quite the reverse, in fact - which is why the united kingdom is so financially, physically and emotionally defunct; please remember that, although the welfare-state was originally the well-intentioned brainwave of those wishing to eradicate poverty, parliament introduced the relevant social legislation at a time when the public had grown used to leading an almost anarchic war-time existence, and when the deadly toll of taking the british population into two devastating, yet ultimately avoidable, world wars had drastically reduced confidence in the absurdly incompetent ruling elite - so as it is for many beleaguered
commonwealth immigrants today, the welfare state was, for the
common man of post-war britain, essentially a bung of blood-money that bought-off a brewing class-revolution; much of the normal world would ridicule our obsession with automatic entitlement to unearned security, but would nevertheless relate closely to our anger at the posh parasitic public-school pirates whose government policies deliberately discriminate against and exploit enormous sections of society, both at home and abroad, and constitute, alongside the crucial collaborating influence of social ignorance, the prime root cause of the endemic poverty which we have subsequently sought to alleviate through the benefit-system.
therefore, it's not necessarily a question of
the secretary of state's precise policies that we're dealing with here, but a question of his motivation for effecting them; if the cuts to public-services are strictly ideological and 'for our own good', then why were they not made during the effluent eighties, when the yuppy champagne was being pissed down the pan, or in the 'booming' noughties, when tings could only get better? furthermore, at a time when a decreased tax-burden would be a surefire boon and boost to our flagging economy, why are public-health and social-security benefit-services being degraded without a corresponding reduction being made in taxation? i mean, how are we meant to source private health-care, private education, and private insurance when we are still paying through the nose for government services which are barely extant? lower taxes are probably the
only reasonable remedy for the woes of our economy, yet apparently they're not propitious for the government slush-fund which fills the gaping gobs of our lords and masters at ministerial feeding-time.
the middle-classes used to complain about 'paying twice' when
choosing to opt for private healthcare and education, but bizarrely the dire condition of state healthcare and education will now
force everyone to 'go private' and to 'pay twice' - once for a service which no longer truly exists, and once for a service which has been set-up by cabinet ministers' business-boss-mates to catch the desperate deluge departing from state provision and cash-in; the conservative politician's fundamental rationale for privatization is no longer
ideological, it is clearly cynically
commercial; you got it - the public
pay twice, the politicians
get paid twice.
yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but the british privileged classes, whatever jolly canvas they may paint, simply don't want to let darkies and other socially-disenfranchized groups get their feet anywhere near the
real establishment or employment ladder - at least, not before those keen underclassed candidates have first crawled on their hands-and-knees, slurped cock, and sold both
their own and
their brothers' souls to the great white hegemony in the rich-man's mind's-eye - and best don't count the ('successful') likes of celebs such as diane abbott and barack obama - they're just fluke figments of their own furtive imaginations.
yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but fossilizing red-tape and suffocating taxation make it pretty much impossible to make a legitimate go of a small business in britain today.
how then are the deliberately disenfranchized classes to afford private-sector-services?
the secretary of state favours bullying those on the jobcentre work-programme because he loves the powerful buzz it gives him, and because it drives cheap labour in the direction of his accomplices ready-and-waiting in the manipulative mercantile employment-market.
the secretary of state favours absolute immigration-control because it creates, for the benefit of unscrupulous firms, an inevitable indetectable sub-class of
illegal immigrants who can be used-and-abused below the minimum-wage without
legal recourse to any official employment tribunal.
what next, sir? job-seekers on work-programme treadmills generating environmentally-friendly electricity for parliament and the civil-service? perhaps, to raise production-levels, you might give your job-gerbils a free-organic-lunch from supermarket left-overs, but obviously 'the perk' would have to be deducted from weekly-benefit payments as 'grub in
lieu of cash'.
to
the secretary of state, the social-justice of equality, sex and race legislation, combined with the welfare-system, comprises a handy head-guard (such as worn by sparring boxers) for the less-advantaged in society - allowing him and his peers liberal licence to punch the crap out of their customers without any fear of causing actual bodily harm; it's all sinister psycho-ops, antagonism and intimidation.
does he care?
does he fuck.
