Friday, April 17, 2009

A statement

Bella Gerens has posted a statement which, though written by an American, could equally apply here. As Bella points out, simply replace "American" with "British", etc. and replace "President" with "fucking useless, thieving bastard of a Prime Minister" and "Obama" with "that accursed, one-eyed, Scots cunt, Brown" and you have a succinct summing up of the situation in this country.
I feel I must explain, at least to the small audience that is available to me, that the naivete with which people are discussing the tea party protests is distracting everyone from the meaning of those protests.

The people who went to those protests were not there simply because they don’t like Obama and they don’t like paying their taxes. There is something much deeper behind their revulsion–a revulsion I share.

The point is this:
American citizens spend half of every year working simply to make their tax payments. That is to say, all taxes combined (US, state, county, city, etc.) are so burdensome to Americans that they must spend literally half of their income paying them. I don’t care what you say about the cost of running the government, protecting our shores, or helping the poor. This is wrong.

It is interesting to note that we consider ourselves free and self-determined yet we are subjected to such staggering regulation of our lives. You can point to our material wealth and say, “you’re wrong… we have it great,” but you’re fooling yourself if you think that. Being free and being rich are not the same thing. Essentially, we’re rich because we’ve managed to fool the world into thinking our money is actually worth something…this is another story. What is really going on here is that our government has become so monstrously plutocratic and tyrannical that they feel they can start wars, spy on us, and abscond with half our paychecks. We are told to shut up and stop whining.

Well, I’m tired of being told that I should put my “nation” before myself. That’s obviously not what this is about. People who say that mean, “put the government before yourself—you are their property.”

I don’t care who the president is (they all manage to find a new and unique way to be absolutely terrible) and I don’t care what they promise us. I think that the feelings of the people at the tea party protests and my own feelings can be quite succinctly expressed:
All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

I don’t suppose many people today would even recognize that text but be sure, were it written by someone today, its writer would be labeled an “extremist” or “domestic terrorist” and thrown into some dark prison. In its day, that text caused a war.

I urge anyone reading this (and believe me, I have no delusions that many are) to consider for a moment whether the life led by an American is a free life. Consider whether anyone can actually claim, under threat of force, half of all your labor. Can those people spy on you? Can force you to fight a war on the other side of the earth? Can they silence you? Can they imprison you? If not, can they stop you if you decide to rob them of their power? Can they stop a million like you? Can they stop 300 million belligerent Americans who know what freedom is and crave it?

I think not.

Having said that, I do not believe these tea party protests were at all effective. Sadly, a protest against the government and its atrocities is rendered impotent when the scoundrels who operate that government make speeches at the protest. Yes, I refer to the infamous Richard Burr who gave a less than stirring speech against Obama and his bailouts. Oddly enough, Mr. Burr voted for the original bailout. How disingenuous to oppose graft only when it’s politically expedient.

Thus, any effect the protest might have had was soundly negated. Especially since Fox News took it upon themselves to portray it as a partisan anti-Obama rally. I think they just like rattling our cages, to be honest.

Just remember, the struggle the United States face today is a lot simpler than economics, party politics, or monetary policy. It is simply a struggle for power between the People and the government. The only power you and I crave is power over ourselves but the government claims that power as well. I am not prepared to submit to them.

Remember, there is nothing patriotic about supporting the government. The United States government is not the United States themselves. We are. We are the country. Our homes and our neighbors are this country. Your choice is either loyalty to them or loyalty to the government. I know on what side I stand.


Unfortunately, all of this requires a population who gives a shit and, alas, the greater part of the population of both countries seem to be quite happy, thank you, to have their lives—their decisions and their course of living—underwritten by the money stolen off others: in the course of doing so, they seem more than happy to have their lives controlled by the state.

I wouldn't mind, were I allowed to opt out, but I cannot. Why? Why should I pay NICs, for instance, when I have covered myself privately (and for half the price)? I am not going to be a burden on the state: why should I have to pay? Why can I not opt out?

I don't see why I should pay for other people to have children—why should I be forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of others through taxes when the loss of that money curtails my own lifestyle choices? How is stealing half of what I earn, at the point of a gun, to pay for things that I would not otherwise pay for in any way "fair" or "just"?

Because, of course, the people on the Left are not really interested in a "just" or "fair" society. What the socialists mean when they talk about "justice" and "fairness" is that those who do not share their concerns should, nevertheless, be forced to pay for them.

In other words, dear readers, what the Left demand is that you and I should pay for their precious morals: these socialists demand that you and I should be deprived of our hard-earned money in order that the consciences of these shits be salved.

Not only that but, in the opinion of your humble Devil, these Leftie cunts advocate that the state steals and redistributes our money to "the poor" because these statist bastards don't actually want to get their hands dirty.

You won't find Lefties actually going around sink estates actively helping these "poor"; oh no, that might be dangerous. Much better to hive such things off to the state's employees. Don't actually go and help someone yourself: just get the state to do it.

This has caused a fractured society, in which "helping someone" is redefined as "stealing money off someone else, by force, and giving it to someone anonymous in order that they should be employed to help the equally anonymous poor". And so our culture has led not to people thinking, "there is another human being in pain: how can I help?" but "why hasn't the state sorted that out?"

I am sick and tired of having to scrimp so that others can be feckless; I am sick and tired of fucking socialist hypocrisy; and I am sick and fucking tired of being forced to pay for the personal fucking morals of the sanctimonious Left.


Mark M said...

Quite right. The Left always believe they know what to do with your money better than you do. They believe in influencing lifestyle through bribery.

Got a child? Have some money. Too fat to work? Have some money.

I will stretch to giving unemployed people money. We need money to live and some people are unemployed through no fault of their own. Outside of that, no money should be awarded for lifestyle choices.

Jeff Randall suggested cutting child benefit payments to higher rate tax payers. I say, scrap them altogether. Why should someone else get my money just because I choose not to have a child? And why should I get someone elses money when I choose to have one?

I don't get given money to pay my rugby subs or gym membership. A child is as much of a lifestyle choice as either of those.

Anonymous said...

Well Mark, a child is also a potential voter.

Anonymous said...

The issue is less with the provision of a social security net than with the fucking epic scale to which it has grown.

Comparatively few of us, even on the libertarian wing, believe that people should be left to starve in the street or that the sick should go untreated for want of £5 worth of pills. No, the problem is not the concept of a social security net but with the culture of welfare dependence that has arisen.

Would we be complaining about the cost of welfare if it was used to allow a working man to feed himself in the six or eight weeks between losing one job and starting another? No. We complain about it because welfare is now an alternative to work. Welfare is what people do when (to quote Ned Flanders) they "just don't feel like working, God love 'em".

Welfare was not always as costly as it is now because welfare was not always used to support families who are now in their fourth generation never to hold a fucking job and who rely on taxpayers to buy their booze and baccy.

Once upon a time, social security was claimed by people who worked almost all of their lives and who were noly drawing out what they put in when they fell on hard times. Now it is an alternative to having a job. Now we have children leaving school at 16 with no fucking ambition beyond claiming Disability Living Allowance or, if they're unlucky enough to get a doctor who won't give them it, Income Support.

Even the costs of supporting these wasters, though, fades into irrelevance when compared with the cost of supporting a bloated and eminently useless state bureaucracy, the major function of which is simply to create more jobs to be filled by clients of the ruling regime.

The biggest form of welfare in this country = the civil service.

SaltedSlug said...

You just finished Atlas Shrugged as well, DK?

I've spent the last week reading it, and found the parallels within shockingly prescient.

Anonymous said...

I have to say DK that was one of your best posts ever.

Hysteria said...

DK - great stuff - with a few words altered to make it palatable to my maiden aunt (and in this post's case - only a very few) - this is a post that should get wide circulation - a rallying cry

God our "democracy" pisses me right off !

Anonymous said...

DK, not one of the best - THE best since I started reading your blog some 2 years ago.

Roger Thornhill said...

To me the core problem with the Welfare State is that

a) it disconnects the giver from the receiver - charity gets intermediated by law.
b) the giver is compelled, so it is not even charity
c) due to the intermediation, discretion cannot sit well, so the welfare distribution slides into "entitlement" with all the working of the system and bureaucracy that this brings.

Discretion is what we all should have the right to exercise as part of being a sovereign human being. We either do it directly, or we personally nominate another, e.g. the Trustees of a charity. What is NOT discretion is when one sub-group gets to determine who has discretion without the consent of all.

Anonymous said...

In a democracy people eventually realise they can vote other peoples money for themselves. it's a fact that Aristotle probably wrote something about.
Thankfully though, socialism has a limited shelf life, which is fast approaching. Even frank Field has written in the Spectator that a fiscal crisis looms in the U.K.
Hold on to your gold, it's going to be a new world before the end of the summer.

Mr Anonymous said...

I was discussing with my partner yesterday the America's NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) program yesterday and remembering the anger it provoked in people - not unlike the outrage welfare recipients provoke.

Over the years of my adult life, I have reviewed, examined -and mostly refuted- the prejudices I was educated to believe, and the discussion yesterday's discussion gave me another opportunity to make such a review.

Should our tax money go to finance artists, especially the offensive, poo-smearing types?
No, but. . . why the outrage? The NEA has a minuscule budget when compared to the military/spy agencies, as does the welfare budget, but why do I never hear outrage about those expenditures? That money goes solely to right violating activities such as: murder, oppression, violence, upsetting relatively stable democracies, spying, wiretapping, torture, bribing, mass destruction, development of weapons of mass extinction, etc.

And we are outraged over a 20,000 dollar grant to an artist whose work offends us? And more on topic -we are outraged about the $500 the welfare mom collects every month? Can we really say this is money wasted on bad ends when most of the tax money extorted from us goes to support truly criminal activities?

I agree with the author that state-controlled welfare trains us to be uncaring, but I also think that it is an issue that is useless to tackle until we take care of the one that is out there destroying with active violence and (following its nature) is starting to threaten us, its sponsor, here at home.

Stay smart friends.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anonymous,

I think the difference between being forced to pay for welfare/NEA and being forced to pay for military agencies etc., is that the activities you described the latter as performing could under different circumstances be justified - heck, where would any country bewithout an army? - whereas Britain's welfare and art funds really cannot. The fact that the power of military agencies is used to '[upset] relatively stable democracies' etc. is rarely condoneable, but then the problem isn't the institution's existence, it's whoever making such decisions. The abilities granted by such an agency can also be used for things that, while similarly unpleasant, may simply be neceassary, even crucial, to a nation's survival.

Can anyone honestly find such a use for either the NEA of your country or the welfare state of mine?


Vicola said...

Well said DK. I can't afford to have kids because thanks to the fucking enormous amount of tax we pay directly and indirectly in this country, I'm completely skint by halfway through the month and we can't afford to have me off work for longer than about 2 weeks. In other words I can't afford to have kids because I have to pay my share in order to allow people who don't work to sit at home and have more children. And I'll be honest, that fucks me off royally.

Anonymous said...

The simple solution to all our problems - less Government interference. Cut taxes then people who want kids can afford them; people who don't can go to the gym more often and be fitter so less of a drain on the NHS. Bonus all round.

Reduce Government back to the Edwardian ideal: (i) defence of the realm; (ii) preservation of public order; (iii) a basic safety net for the idigient; (iv) the promotion of those projects key to the national good which could not otherwise take place.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...