Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Homogenous diversity

Ed Clarke is talking about public services.
Could it be that far from the differences being down to quantity of cash thrown at them it's more to do with how the services are run? So for those who think that the schools in Lambeth are worse - it's up to you to change the way they are run, not to demand more cash. The easy option is to try and run everything from the centre, to make sure that everything is the same. I don't think the easy option often works out as the best option.

You can say that again. But it's this line that's the real piece of simple genius...
Isn't it ironic that it's the same people who preach cultural diversity insist that we live in an ever more homogenised nation?

That trivial idea had never occurred to me, but it's absolutely true. But it makes sense, as Ed points out, because as long as the state controls in what ways people are either diverse or homogenous, it makes it much easier to mask totalitarian control behind a veneer of freedom.

"Look," they say, "We have made it easier for homosexuals, women and people of colour by ensuring that they cannot be discriminated against!"*

Which is, of course, very laudable. But try to be different in any meaningful way—like being able to buy extra drugs to improve your chances of living, or being able to choose where your children are educated—and you'll find the dead hand of a totalitarian state blocking your way.

The state will happily decide to spend your money on funding gay propaganda, but you'd better not dare to use your money in order to make a difference to your own life.

Fuck them all, the cunting shitsticks.


* Even though there was little evidence that they were being discriminated against in the private sector anyway. As any Private Eye reader will know, the public sector was—and to an extent, still is—rife with it.

4 comments:

John Trenchard said...

"The state will happily decide to spend your money on funding gay propaganda"

which , of course, pisses off our Muslim population, which then leads to "task forces" to solve "Muslim alienation", whilst in the background the devout Christians seeth and grit their teeth, and thus the ever-divisive cycle grows ever larger - no doubt to be "solved" by ever more quangos, reviews, and policy documents about the lack of "social cohesion". A lack of cohesion that was created by the fucking government , at taxpayer expense, in the first place.

Ed said...

Thanks for explaining my point better than I did.

verity said...

A "lack of cohesion" deliberately and energetically engineered, let us not forget.

We had cohesion and a familial feel in our country for hundreds of years before the toxicity of Tony Blair and the circus-coming-to-town of "New Labour!" "Britain is a young country!" (Wha'???) "Cool Britannia!" from people who were intentionally unpicking Britannia. It was cleverly, and slyly done. Our country was stolen from us with each stitch unpicked from our long and intensely woven tapestry.

And then an alien society was not only sluiced into our country, but told it didn't have to adhere to our standards of civilisation. And put on the welfare rolls, costs charged to the natives who didn't invite them in.

What I hate most is the vacuous, self-regarding Tony Blair and the commie slapper he's married to - willing to sacrifice our 45m (in those days) cohesive people on the altar of his ego and the name of communism.

And his infiltration of the toxicity of people from an alien, primitive society to dilute all we have achieved for 2,000 years.

I am counting on Blair's dicky ticker to provide us with some black entertainment.

John Trenchard - I would not say "our" Muslim population. They're on our land. They're not "ours".

Roger Thornhill said...

As I posted on another blog comment thread, if you make everyone hate each other, then the State appears your friend, an Enforcer-In-Chief that you need not bribe except with the temptation of being able to rob more from others than from you.