The Time Has Come - cont'd

In the wake of the London riots, Tanya Gold in the pages of today's Guardian has written a paean to single mums.

What?!

To criticisms of feral children, she replied, in part: “A sane government would provide cheap child care, of course...”

With all due respect, Tanya: Why would “a sane government” support family breakdown, by concentrating its efforts on the ‘curative’ end of things rather than the preventive end?? Unless it wanted to bring the children up in its image, like the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Otherwise, one has good reason to conclude that simply paying benefits for females having babies - in mindset effect, in order for them to have babies ‘on the house’ - is closer to the definition of insanity. It’s as if they want to have their cake and eat it, too: having children without consideration of, care for, the father, or fathers. Having a way of life, living on ‘benefits’.

Ah, but in reading further on in her article, I see what she is gettting at. And that there is an agenda here, beyond just some mothers enjoying freebies.

She says that only 3% of single mums are teenagers, with the average age of such mothers being 37 (and the majority - 55% - had had their children within marriage). And her next point is: “...and force companies to offer jobs with flexible working hours.”

She now gives away her case. She does refer to abusive spouses, as one reason for older women becoming single mums. But are there that many abusive spouses out there? Or is this a pleading for, preference for, a man-free household. As a societal ideal for some.

And why would the state want to support a state of dysfunctionality? Just because some women want to have children but not spouses?? And that’s pretty tough to do; so the state should support them in that preferred lifestyle???

“But they [the perpetrators of this outrageous situation] are not in the business of solutions. They want punishment,” she concludes. Punishment, of...whom, Tanya.

She refers to such as witches of olde. Women of an independent streak. Strong women. Like her. Like - lesbians.

Her whole case, then, in pointing a finger at the ‘dysfunctionality’ of the government and its ministers, in not providing properly for ‘single mums’, is based on her gender orientation, and ‘feminist’ - ie, women’s lib - philosophy.

She wants the state - ie, the taxpayers - to help such strong women have children without the bother of the presence of the sperm donor. And I say that that is immoral.

It is immoral, not because lesbians are ‘immoral’, but because she would have the taxpayers pay for her desired social structure. And beyond her personal gender orientation, and sexual-freedom philosophy, it is the same immorality engendered in heterosexual females when thinking to have ‘the state’ - the taxpayers, let us never forget - pay for those ‘single mums’ to have babies on their dime. So we have come full circle, back to the phenomenon of a body of females thinking to have babies without full regard for the welfare OF those children, in being born into poverty and lack of role-model circumstances.

I addressed this issue in a Letter to the Editor of the Guardian this past week. I’ll quote it first, and then comment further, on the issues here.

“Dear Editor,

“(The name of a letter writer) has hit the nail right on the head regarding the riots (Letters, 16 August). This outcome has been pending for years, ever since the UK made the mistake of paying females to have babies that they weren’t prepared to be able to take care of properly. It has been a form of child abuse, aided and abetted by a state with misplaced sympathies. The sympathies would better have been directed to the bleak lives of such children, many of whom are now the parents and grandparents of similarly afflicted children, permanently on welfare.

“The state should make contraceptive information available to the poor, and even provide contraceptive materials either free or at low cost. But ‘not one cent for tribute’ - money from taxpayers many of whom can‘t even afford to have their own children, and are being responsible in that life situation by not having them. And soon, when females too poor to be having children in such conditions finally get that - that they’re not to get any money (or housing) from the state for having any - this problem, of rootless and poverty-stricken children striking out at an ’unfair’ world, will become a thing of the past.

“In the meantime, of course give such children who are already in the situation as much social support as the society can afford. But it’s time and past to start spending an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure.

Yours sincerely” (etc)


It is a shortsighted society that thinks that one-parent households can work in the long run. Give those mothers child benefits, and council houses, and food stamps, and other ‘benefits’ (let's call them what they are: freebies), and think that they will ever get off ‘the dole’, is crazy. It is more than that. It is, as I said above: immoral.

In the States recently this issue has come up in a big way, in discussions around ‘job creation’, which has revealed that there is a welfare-mentality class that doesn’t want a job to interfere in their cushy way of life. The federal government, it appears, has passed legislation that gives children on welfare free mobile phones, and access to the internet, and such perks, because, well, because they shouldn’t be deprived of things that support their wellbeing, or some such argument.*

This is all getting very dangerous. Not just in the way of partisanship - and how Obama has quietly used Executive Orders to bring millions of (Muslim) Afghanis to America, and housed and supported them, and the same for Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and now has declared a partial Amnesty to illegal aliens; thus diluting the voting strenth of ‘the right’ against this attempted leftwing takeover of the nation. But in the way of the mentality being created by it.

Believing that it’s okay not to work because food stamps and unemployment payments provide a stimulus to the economy is sophistry.** If you don’t become a part of the provision of goods and services to the economy, then you are a leach, feeding off of the lifeblood of others. You may rationalize your action, or to say the lack of, by pointing a finger at the ‘owner class’, including the bankers, and saying that they are ‘doing it’, too, ie, ripping off ‘the system’; but that is all that is: a rationalization. It is their karma. You are responsible for your own.

And are responsible for your old age. If you don’t work, how are you going to earn the money to put in the pot for your retirement years? Oh - the government will pay for that, too? Really? Do you really not understand that ‘the government’ has no money of its own, only has (besides borrowing debt money, which has to be paid by succeeding generations) the money the citizens pay in in taxes; and if more of those citizens take your lead and don’t work, and thus don’t pay in to the pot, there will be no pot??

It’s time for some very clear thinking on these matters, which should result in the awareness that, in a phrase, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’. Somebody has to pay for it, in the end. And it is immoral to think, and teach, otherwise.

Socialists think that their way will create a better world. But we will not be able to get to The Promised Land - to a better way of social being on this planet, than the current one, dominated by the training wheels of interest-bearing money on the one hand and fractional-reserve banking on the other - if we don’t realise the importance of each of us taking responsibility for the functioning of the system; at the minimum, of our own personal responsibility, in contributing our efforts to keep it going. And our best efforts, if we care for our own personal development - our own spiritual evolvement, to our fullest potential.

We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Let’s get to the purpose - to the focus - to the end result - of the exercise. That requires each of us to play our part. Not to expect anyone else - individual or government - to do it for us.

Having said all this; and as for those high-and-mighty examplers, the bankers and benefits-cheating ministers and such, who have their own karma to clear: the fish is rotten from the head. Innit.

---



* A poster on one thread to an article on this subject told the story of how the person in the supermarket queue in front of him bought around a hundred dollars’ worth of groceries with food stamps and then an additional large purchase of alcohol and such with cash, and when he queried the person why she used food stamps, she said that they were “from Obama” and it was none of his business anyway. Of course not. If you think that your food stamps come “from Obama,” instead of from the taxpayers...

And this reminds me of another chilling story from ’the left’ - this one from many years ago, during the Kennedy administration years. The Left was having a golden opportunity then, too; and one of the ways that it was trying for takeover and remake into a socialist system (with its euphemism, 'redistribution of wealth'. That is, stealing from the better well-off to give to the less well-off, because 'they're worth it') was via the education pathway. We have seen how some primary schools have been hyping Obama in their classrooms, as a Dear Leader: in those earlier days, one technique was the development of such primary-school picture-readers as the one that told the story about one squirrel talking to another squirrel, who was busy gahering nuts for the winter, and telling him that he didn’t have to do that; because “the little boy who lives in the white house” (complete with picture of such) would take care of them.

Squirrely, indeed.



** being actively encouraged by the Obama administration and left-wing members of Congress. The socialists are getting very brazen in their actions. Which, in a way, is a good thing: It is all getting more obvious, to an electorate which, by and large, has not been fully aware of the extent of the takeover going on.

The sheep is close enough now for the flock to see the outlines of the wolf underneath that benign exterior.