When you have spent much time in close proximity to the young female yet far enough away to observe, just as any parent with a daughter has but also in a different way because her behaviour is often different from one to the other, then you see all the good and also most of the bad.
Quite apart from the wholly unhealthy way so many girls are growing up now, scarring them as much as indelible body tattoos, bereft of values, living within no traditional limits and ignorant as hell of all but the wrong*, the unimportant parts of life and history, on a high yet facing a life of uselessness – apart from all that, there has always been this 100% or nothing way with girls.
There is with young men too and that’s the age the oversimplifications of socialism and misplaced attacks on anything remotely smacking of “institution” have their day. Some never grow up, politically and so we get the misnamed left-liberals at their most benign, locked into a flawed reasoning about the nature of wealth and property.
There’s a secretary I’m currently friendly with and I put it to her the other day. Would she agree that it is terrible what is happening to the unfortunate members of society these days? Oh yes. Would you support the government helping these unfortunate people by giving them jobs and money and so on? Oh yes.
So therefore you’d give up your job for these people or half your salary because after all, there are only so many jobs and so much salary? She thought about that one and then came the predictable response about there being enough wealth to go round and look after these people. So, wealth is all that money out there which you don’t have but it should be partly given to good causes? Oh yes.
And where does that money come from in the first place? She pondered. I don’t think about all this politics thing ‘n all. I agreed – it’s boring – but still I asked – from sales and taxes? Yes. So part of that money should be given to these unfortunates? Yes. OK, who decides how much and to whom – the government?
OK, and when the government decides that your grandmother must now move out of her home which is too big for her, according to them, even though it is hers and she’s spent a lifetime getting to that position, you’d agree she should be thrown out and the house given to the unmarried mothers on benefits and the rehabilitating drug addicts from the Job Centre? Hell no – it doesn’t have to be them.
You’re right, it doesn’t. It could be five other grandmothers without homes? Your grandmother must share her house with them? Yes, no, I don’t know. And who decides which grandmothers get to share your grandmother’s family home? The local council worker? Well, no.
And if they decide, these faceless government functionaries, in their planning meetings, that you must vacate your home and/or they’ll put a tax of £50 a week on you to cover the unfortunates, when the council itself is wasting millions of pounds in Iceland and council officers are on £200000 a year, partly of your money, you’re quite happy with this?
They’re not getting any of my money. Yes but you’ve just said they can. You’ve just voted for a party which says that they have the right and obligation to do this to you. Maybe not to you as such but it’s now nothing to do with you what happens to what you earn. If you’ve saved up enough money for that dress or that trip and they say you must now pay part of that money to the unfortunates, meaning you either don’t have that trip or your credit card now goes beyond the limit – you’re quite happy about that?
No but we have to look after the disabled and all that. Yes, said I, those that truly are incapable, could never, ever work, maybe 2% of the population – our taxes would cover that. But what you’ve given permission for – you and millions of others – is for other people out there to decide for you how your money is spent. No – they’re not touching my money.
But they are doing this right now – you’ve agreed earlier that they may do this. Now take jobs – let’s say that a secretary gets the same salary as a neuro-surgeon. The surgeon studies for five years and then does an internship and you, though you’re a wonderful secretary, do not do that. Yet you both have the same salary. But that’s wrong, she said. But that’s what these people are offering you. If I am offered shift work as a shelf stacker and the same as a neuro-surgeon, which will I do, which will anyone do and what does that do to society?
Further, when you go out of those doors today and some man comes up and demands money because he needs it, not making any threats but asking for it, do you give him the money in your purse? I don’t have money, I have cards. OK, you take him to the hole in the wall and get money out for him. Well, if I liked him and wanted to. So, if you decided his case was valid, that he deserved it, you’d do that? Well yes.
So you’d be happy to do this as long as you had the power to decide whom to and how much? Yes – are you saying that’s wrong? Not at all, I replied – I’m agreeing with you that it’s your right to decide. But you gave that right away. No I didn’t. You did when you agreed that the government had to look after these partnerless mothers. The government then decides who gets the money and who it is taken from.
Couldn’t they make more? Government doesn’t make money – it collects and distributes it. Businesses and shopkeepers make money, you make money in exchange for your services. The wealth as we mentioned before, is made by you. The government and various political groups come along and say to you – you are the worker, you make the money, give it to us so we can distribute it to those we think are worthy.
No, never. Unfortunately, yes, in the eyes of such people. And when you and your guy, who have taken a mortgage for a house or flat and are paying monthly for that, when you are told by someone outside, like a council worker, that your house is now needed, you gladly give it over, saying – well, it’s for the good of the down-and-outs? Never. But if you saw a down-and-out and thought his case just, that he really does need help – you’d help him? Well yes but only if I decided.
OK, so you’ve now decided that you’d help some of the unfortunates, along with millions of other people thinking the same way, and you might even agree to some taxation – say, 10-15% – for this to cover those people, as well as other services you’d expect? Yes. But the government looks at you … and let’s say you and your partner have been successful, you’ve started up a little business together and it’s struggling but surviving. The government looks at you two and says – we want 50% of that.
That’s wrong, she said. Yes but when we agree to the government doing these things, we are handing over the power to decide for us. I never said they could do that. Just help the disabled like. Yes that’s how you see it, that’s how I see it, that’s how so many of us see it – but they don’t see it this way, these people above us. They see that because you put a tick in a box for them every so often, that they have the right to decide where your money and property go. Our money, our property, is no longer ours – it goes into the great pool of money from which officials and committees and politicians can take their slice, with some of of it trickling down to people they favour.
So what’s the solution [?], she despaired. Never vote for any party with grandiose schemes of helping the unfortunates. Never vote for any party which talks about millions of your money. Because they’re either lying or are stacked with the type of people who haven’t a clue. But that’s all the parties. Yes, it is, certainly the Big 3. Well who should I vote for? For a start, it’s your choice, not mine or anyone else’s. However, if you ask my opinion on this, I’d vote for anyone local who would help local business. Because from business comes sustainable jobs and I’d like there to be a few jobs around here.
But they say they will create jobs, they all try to make jobs. Yes, they say they do but don’t show any mechanism as to how that can be achieved. Whereas, if you vote for some local person who will vote in council or parliament for reducing taxes and boosting local businesses and if millions across the country do that, then it gets back to how you said you liked it – with it being your choice and your charity towards others, on your say-so.
I have to get back. Can we talk about this again? If you wish.
Which has little to do with Pussy Riot. The problem is not what they said or whom against – the problem is that they, just as much as Putin, showed little respect. They felt that their 100% or nothing cause was so important and they were so important in bringing this to the world’s attention, that they could desecrate somone else’s church in order to do it.
Someone had filled their head with maggots about “religion”, equating the patriarchs in bed with Putin to the millions upon millions of devout people who respect what the church represents. Those worshipeprs inside that church felt that respect was needed. The three girls decided, just as the outside forces did in the secretary saga above, that it was quite Ok to profane what someone else held dear, on the grounds that they’d decided their own cause was just and more important than those other people’s lives.
Many are not happy with these girls, of no life experience but full of their own perceived wisdom:
Valentina Ivanova, a retired doctor, told Reuters: “What they did showed disrespect towards everything, and towards believers first of all.”
And this has come through to me from Russia over and over – those girls were in no position of knowledge of what it was all about, about life itself and history, to take that action and think it was without consequences. But we’re the good people, against Putin, they’re so convinced. They think this incarceration is support for their cause.
No, the ordinary Russians do not support this desecration because their desecration is precisely what the communist regime and then the corrupt presidents were doing. These girls – and I suspect many readers – will not see this in the least.
From Rossa, hot off the press:
* Waiting for someone to pick up on this one.