The Hermits Guide to Tax and Benefits.

A right wing utopia?

It can be such a pain to understand right wingers sometimes. You need to keep an eye on all the little tricks and mind games they play to frame issues for themselves.

They ask 'Benefits! Why should my money have to pay for them?'

I've actually heard right wingers argue that all tax is unethical and a form of theft. It comes down to a belief in a right wing capitalist utopia. Where, if public services became privatised and tax removed it would result in greater efficiency and increased wealth for all (due to a trickle down effect) which would enable everybody to pay for services themselves. This of course is an unworkable, fantasy of theirs, but more than that its an example of them following their framed logic though to its ultimate conclusion.

Lets clarify types of truths. A cultural truth is any truth that is not a physical truth. For example David Cameron is prime minister. Not because of and biological or physical element to him but because we live in a society and system in which he was able to achieve the conceptual status of PM. Likewise all notions of money, value and property are cultural truths. This is what makes up society and makes us all a part of it no matter how independent you may think you are.

Arguments put by some on the right seems to come from a denial of this reality. It goes against their notions of independance, to be tied down to society. A weakness they refuse to except. Maybe this shines some light on the right wing psyche. In reality its society that builds the infrastructures and recognises peoples property, statuses and rights. The wealthiest are the greatest beneficiary's.

You can't be a part of this society and truly independent. To be independent means possessing only what you can hold in your hands. The true reality of this right wing dream would be the life of a hermit. With this understanding, claims by the likes of Thatcher that "There's no such thing as society" show themselves as ridiculous. Distorted ways to frame their relationship with the world. They think they owe nothing and all their achievements are through their own means alone. In reality we all owe society almost everything. The more wealth we acquire, the more we owe. They, like the rest of us, need to pay their dues.

The Wicked Witch of the Mail

How was it born? Her shrivelled carcass split with a crack, forming the dry wafery beak from which she spewed vile and hate upon her flock. They chewed into her excrement as if it was the answer to their pitiful lives. Some watched with disgust. "why?" "When it would all end?" But they could never understand. She lived and flourished on the offerings of affection from her loyal tribe. They, unable to conceive reality themselves, of which she claimed vast knowledge and understanding, repeated every motion of her lips, burning the messages onto their minds. She would keep them safe. She would protect them. “Loyalty like this” she smiled “Loyalty others could but dream of”.

Baby’s cried, animals snarled, the spectators cried out “Why so much hate!” A lump of dread flowed out from the tribe. Decayed and old, not through age but venom, the tribe crunched their hollowed out shells along the streets. Bitter and snappish, their misguided superiority and twisted world views comforting them as they dragged their stale skin over the aspirations of mankind. The whiff of these bitter hearts polluted the air. An acid stench that grew with every conflict. But they liked it, it drove them. The world did not fit the preachings but they saw their chance to make it fit. The ease. The lack of resistance as the stench of dread dyed itself so firmly into every wall and building they passed. This was a sign.

A small quiver of excitement shuddered over them. Spreading conflict was the only method left for Melanie Phillips horde to reminisce over their lost emotions of hope and goodwill. She was not going to let them down. “This world was made for my tribe, my tribe was made for me!” Spitting rage and crying injustice against every individual who dared dreams about having a happier existence than she. Melanie Phillips boiled and fumed as she slid to her place ahead of the tribe. Her swollen right amygdara oozed puss with every syllable she mutters. “they don't understand” She shrieked to her flock, encouraging them on. “They have a child's understanding. They know nothing of the responsibility we have to deal with. We know the dangers. We see the decadence. We understand history. We know where it leads”

The sight that met the country was indeed a shocking one. Turfed out of their graves the horde shoved their rotting bodies though the streets. “Are any of them people we know?” People wondered, staring in disbelief. “Where did they all come from?” “There's so many! Am I only sane one left?” Observers stumbled, disorientated by the unsightly mass of irrational hatred. The rattle of bitter disapproval began shimmering through every corner as the plague sought to convert or vilify all that lay in its path.

You must understand something. You see inside Melanie Phillips, behind the vale of hate that coats every fibre of her being, lies a vulnerable child. Not strong, not confident, not in control. What happened next is a testament to how weak and ineffective theses people are. I'm not sure where it started. Some say it was just a kid who, after hearing the creature rant, saw it for the frenzied loonacy of a comic character. Some say this was all inevitable, once it got to big, to in your face, to absurd. People simply started to laugh. Just a titter at first. Perhaps a sign of disbelief at how stupid and mixed up people can be. Then it grew. In a matter of minutes the whole country was shaking with hysterics. “Melanie Phillips and her army of clowns” “Their so out of step with reality” “How can they function in day to day life.” The world was safe, as we hope it always was. Safe in the knowledge Melanie Phillips is an utter joke.

The Silly Art of Anti Multicultural Rants

With the news constantly reminding me of the growth of the EDL and respect for my fellow human beings hampered by the number of far right trolls clogging up the web, I though I'd take to time to write down my take on multiculturalism and some of the silliness of the opposing arguments. 

It strikes me that the vast amount of arguments and debates over multiculturalism comes from confused definitions. In fact I'd say all the main far right arguments you seem to hear are totally dependent on confusion and misunderstanding in regard to conflicting definitions.

Some would say its the terrible picture of things to come.....

I should start by clarifying my definition of term 'multiculturalism'. 'Multiculturalism' for me is about accepting different cultures whilst staying within the framework of human rights. That is to say keeping within the confines of human rights there should be room for the freedom to have your own culture and to be a individual. People shouldn't be made to conform to someone else's idea of what their identity should be. I believe this to be pretty much the traditional definition of 'multiculturalism' and will refer to it as the 'traditional definition'. Believe it or not there is a moderate argument against multiculturalism, typified by, columnist for the independent, Johann Hari. However these arguments involve a massive redefining of term 'multiculturalism'. To Hari its about active promotion of cultural separation by government and is therefore easy for a moderate to attack.

I don't object to Hari's political views. In the main he has sound left wing opinions. I do object to his attempt at redefining the word 'multiculturalism'. I'll illustrate the differences with an example. We both don't believe their should be faith schools. I however don't consider them multicultural, I consider them monocultural. He would blame active promotion of cultures for faith schools and thus blame it on 'Multiculturalism' as he defines the term.

The alternative to multiculturalism (Traditional definition) is monoculturalism and thus any opposition to this definition of multiculturalism is fundamentally anti-liberty. The alternative to Hari's multiculturalism could be monoculturalism but it could also easily be multiculturalism (Traditional definition). Hari explains how he hoped to change the nature of the debate though redefining the language, however to my mind it seems likely that its been counter productive to his left wing goals.

Now to the basic argument that seems to occur repeatedly with various far right ranters. Its simple, really. They attack multiculturalism via one definition, then draw a conclusions based off anther definition. Any moderate person could attack multiculturalism via Hari's definition, however the far right then take that conclusion to mean that we should have monoculturalism. This is of course silly.

Johann Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us one thing - why multiculturalism must be abandoned 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html